BUDGET The United States

Department of the Interior

JUSTIFICATIONS
and Performance Information
Fiscal Year 2018

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NOTICE: These budget
justifications are prepared
for the Interior, Environment
and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittees.
Approval for release of the
justifications prior to their
printing in the public record of
the Subcommittee hearings
may be obtained through
the Office of Budget of the
Department of the Interior.

Printed on
Recycled Paper
Table of Contents

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
FY 2018 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Organization
Organization Chart and Regional Structure........................................................................................... vi

A – Executive Summary
Overview ........................................................................................................................................... A-1
Budget Highlights .............................................................................................................................. A-3
National Priorities and Areas of Importance ..................................................................................... A-4
Our Nation's Natural Resources .................................................................................................. A-4
Land and Water Stewardship ...................................................................................................... A-5
Tribal Nations ............................................................................................................................. A-6
Public Safety and Security .......................................................................................................... A-6
USGS Infrastructure .................................................................................................................... A-7
Management and Efficiencies ..................................................................................................... A-8
Fixed Costs ........................................................................................................................................ A-8

B – Technical Adjustments and Internal Transfers
Climate and Land Use Change/Land Resources Mission Area Budget Restructure ......................... B-1
Coastal and Marine Geology Program Name Change ....................................................................... B-5
Internal Transfers .............................................................................................................................. B-6

C – USGS Science Collaboration
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... C-1
Examples of USGS Science Coordination and Collaborations ......................................................... C-2

D – 2018 Budget at a Glance
2018 Budget at a Glance Table .......................................................................................................... D-1

E – Program Changes
2018 Program Changes Table ............................................................................................................ E-1
Ecosystems ......................................................................................................................................... E-2
Land Resources .................................................................................................................................. E-5
Energy and Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................... E-8
Environmental Health........................................................................................................................ E-8
Natural Hazards .............................................................................................................................. E-10
Water Resources ............................................................................................................................. E-13
Core Science Systems ..................................................................................................................... E-17
Science Support .............................................................................................................................. E-18

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification i
Table of Contents

F – Ecosystems
2018 Request Table ............................................................................................................................. F-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ................................................................................................. F-2
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request ........................................................................................................ F-2
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... F-2
Program Performance ................................................................................................................... F-5
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 ..................................................................................... F-5
Status and Trends Program.................................................................................................................. F-7
Fisheries Program .............................................................................................................................. F-11
Wildlife Program ............................................................................................................................... F-15
Environments Program ..................................................................................................................... F-19
Invasive Species Program ................................................................................................................. F-23
Cooperative Research Units Program .............................................................................................. F-25

G – Land Resources
2018 Request Table ............................................................................................................................ G-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ................................................................................................ G-2
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request ....................................................................................................... G-2
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... G-3
Program Performance .................................................................................................................. G-6
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 .................................................................................... G-7
National Land Imaging Program ....................................................................................................... G-9
Land Change Science Program ....................................................................................................... G-13
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers ........................................................... G-19

H – Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health
2018 Request Table ............................................................................................................................ H-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ................................................................................................ H-2
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request ....................................................................................................... H-2
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... H-2
Program Performance .................................................................................................................. H-6
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 .................................................................................... H-7
Energy and Minerals
Mineral Resources Program ........................................................................................................ H-9
Energy Resources Program ........................................................................................................ H-13
Environmental Health
Contaminant Biology Program .................................................................................................. H-17
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program ..................................................................................... H-21

U.S. Geological Survey
ii 2018 Budget Justification
Table of Contents

I – Natural Hazards
2018 Request Table ..............................................................................................................................I-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ..................................................................................................I-2
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request .........................................................................................................I-2
Overview ........................................................................................................................................I-3
Program Performance ....................................................................................................................I-4
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 ......................................................................................I-5
Earthquake Hazards Program ...............................................................................................................I-9
Volcano Hazards Program .................................................................................................................I-13
Landslide Hazards Program ..............................................................................................................I-17
Global Seismographic Network .........................................................................................................I-21
Geomagnetism Program ....................................................................................................................I-23
Coastal-Marine Hazards and Resources Program ..............................................................................I-25

J – Water Resources
2018 Request Table ............................................................................................................................. J-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ................................................................................................. J-2
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request ........................................................................................................ J-2
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... J-3
Program Performance ................................................................................................................... J-4
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 ..................................................................................... J-5
Water Availability and Use Science Program ..................................................................................... J-7
Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program ......................................................................... J-11
National Water Quality Program ....................................................................................................... J-13
Water Resource Research Act Program ............................................................................................ J-17

K – Core Science Systems
2018 Request Table ............................................................................................................................ K-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ................................................................................................ K-1
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request ....................................................................................................... K-2
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... K-2
Program Performance .................................................................................................................. K-5
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 .................................................................................... K-5
National Geospatial Program ............................................................................................................. K-9
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program .......................................................................... K-13
Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research ...................................................................................... K-17

L – Science Support
2018 Request Table ............................................................................................................................ L-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ................................................................................................ L-1
Activity Summary

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification iii
Table of Contents

Summary of Budget Request ....................................................................................................... L-1
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... L-2
Program Performance .................................................................................................................. L-2
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 .................................................................................... L-5
Administration and Management ....................................................................................................... L-7
Information Services ........................................................................................................................ L-11

M – Facilities
2018 Request Table ........................................................................................................................... M-1
Summary of Program Changes Table ............................................................................................... M-1
Activity Summary
Summary of Budget Request ...................................................................................................... M-1
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... M-1
Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018 ................................................................................... M-4
Rental Payments and Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................... M-5
Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements ............................................................................ M-9

N – USGS Working Capital Fund
Working Capital Fund Overview ....................................................................................................... N-1
Appropriation Language and Citations .............................................................................................. N-3
Program and Financing ...................................................................................................................... N-5
Balance Sheet ..................................................................................................................................... N-6
Object Classification ......................................................................................................................... N-7
Employment Summary ....................................................................................................................... N-7

O - USGS Exhibits
Appropriation Language .................................................................................................................... O-1
Appropriation Language and Citations .............................................................................................. O-2
Expiring Authorizations ..................................................................................................................... O-3
Administrative Provisions Language ................................................................................................. O-4
Administrative Provisions Language and Citations ........................................................................... O-5
Summary of Requirements ................................................................................................................. O-6
USGS Justification of Fixed Costs and Internal Realignments .......................................................... O-8

P – Account Exhibits
Summary of Requirements by Object Class ........................................................................................ P-1
Program and Financing ....................................................................................................................... P-3
Object Classification ........................................................................................................................... P-6
Employment Summary ........................................................................................................................ P-8

Q – Sundry Exhibits
Funding of U.S. Geological Survey Programs (Obligations) ............................................................ Q-1
Special and Trust Fund Receipts ...................................................................................................... Q-11
Program and Financing .................................................................................................................... Q-11

U.S. Geological Survey
iv 2018 Budget Justification
Table of Contents

Object Classification ........................................................................................................................ Q-12
Employment Summary ..................................................................................................................... Q-13
Employee Count by Grade ............................................................................................................... Q-14
Section 403 Compliance ................................................................................................................... Q-15
DOI Working Capital Fund Revenue Centralized Billing................................................................ Q-15
DOI Working Capital Fund Revenue Direct Billing ........................................................................ Q-21
Payments to Other Federal Agencies ............................................................................................... Q-23
Shared Program Costs ...................................................................................................................... Q-23

R - Appendix
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... R-1

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification v
Table of Contents

U.S. Geological Survey
Chief of Staff
Director
Director – Office of Science Director – Office of International
Associate Director – Office of Budget, Quality and Integrity Programs
Planning, and Integration

Deputy Director Director – Office of Diversity and
Associate Director – Office of Chief – Office of Enterprise Information
Equal Opportunity
Communications and Publishing

Associate Director – Associate Director – Associate Director –
Associate Director – Ecosystems Natural Hazards Energy and Minerals Administration

Associate Director – Climate and Associate Director – Associate Director –
Land Use Change Associate Director – Water Core Science Systems
Environmental Health

Regional Director – Regional Director – Regional Director –
Northeast Alaska Northwest
Regional Director –
Southeast
Regional Director – Regional Director – Regional Director –
Midwest Southwest Pacific

USGS Regional Structure

U.S. Geological Survey
vi 2018 Budget Justification
Executive Summary
Executive Summary

Executive Summary
Total 2018 Budget Request
(Dollars in Thousands)
2017 CR
Budget Authority 2016 Actual Annualized 2018 Request
Current 1,062,000 1,059,981 922,168
Permanent 1,031 696 565
Operation & Maintenance of Quarters 49 52 52
Contributed Funds 982 644 513
Total Current and Permanent 1,063,031 1,060,677 922,733

2017 CR
FTE 2016 Actual Annualized 2018 Request
Direct 4,923 4,923 4,114
Reimbursable 2,799 2,799 2,519
Working Capital Fund 152 152 152
Allocation Account 72 72 72
Contributed Funds 5 5 5
USGS Total 7,951 7,951 6,862

Overview

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the scientific arm of the Department of the Interior, was established
in 1879 (43 U.S.C. 31) for “the classification of the public lands and examination of the geological
structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain.”

President Theodore Roosevelt declared in a 1907 State of the Union address that conservation (of forests,
wildlife, minerals—including energy minerals, and water) was "the fundamental problem which underlies
almost every other problem of our national life" and established the doctrine that science is the proper tool
to discharge conservation policy. This principle underpins USGS science to this day, as the USGS has
developed a reputation as a source of sound, unbiased science for natural resource development and
conservation.

Today, the USGS leads the Nation in providing unbiased Earth science research and integrated
assessments of natural resources and hazards; supporting the stewardship of public lands and waters; as
well as promoting science to protect public safety, health, property, and U.S. economic prosperity.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification A-1
Executive Summary

The Nation faces unprecedented challenges: increasing demand for limited energy and mineral resources,
losing critical and unique ecosystems, changing land resources, increasing vulnerability to natural
hazards, growing uncertainty of water security and availability, and emerging diseases threatening
wildlife and human health. The USGS provides the science to support exploration and development of
energy and mineral resources; sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations; monitor changes to land
resources; improve resilience to natural hazards and enhance community safety and well-being; improve
water resource decision making; and provide accurate, high-resolution geospatial data.

The 2018 President’s budget request includes $922.2 million for the USGS, a decrease of $137.8 million
over the 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution. The USGS budget emphasizes developing and
delivering tools and scientific information needed by the public and by land and resource managers to
make the most effective decisions. The investments in this 2018 budget request advance several
priorities, such as developing the ground system for Landsat 9; assessing the availability of energy and
critical mineral resources; tackling water challenges; supporting disaster alerting and rapid response;
conducting research on land resources; producing high-resolution geospatial data; tracking risks to the
health of humans, other organisms, and ecosystems; and addressing new and emerging invasive species
and disease.

Scientific coordination and collaboration within Interior and across the government is central to the USGS
mission. By leveraging across Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, the private sector, and non-
governmental organizations, the USGS is able to provide science and information that is thorough,
accurate, and tailor-made to address some of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. The
diversity of USGS scientific expertise enables the bureau to carry out large-scale, multi-disciplinary
investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers and planners, emergency
response officials, and the public.

While the 2018 budget request includes reductions to many programs, it continues to reflect a
commitment to the core mission of the USGS, focuses on conducting important research, and provides
impartial scientific data to key stakeholders and decision makers that helps promote the health, safety, and
prosperity of the Nation. With this budget request, the USGS is streamlining its operational scope in
support of national priorities: energy and mineral resources; science to protect public safety, health,
property, natural hazard preparedness and mitigation responses; and land and water stewardship.

U.S. Geological Survey
A-2 2018 Budget Justification
Executive Summary

Budget Highlights

Budget Change Summary
($ in Thousands)
2017 CR Annualized $1,059,981
Program Change -$159,590
Fixed Costs +$21,777
2018 Budget Request $922,168

2018 Budget Request
( Dollars in Thousands)
Budget Authority 2018
2018
Surveys, Investigations, and 2016 Fixed Program 2018
Research Enacted 2017 CR Costs Changes Request
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 -$29,547 $132,128
Land Resources $139,975 $139,709 $602 -$25,987 $112,847
Energy and Minerals, and
$94,511 $94,331 $1,221 -$5,519 $91,510
Environmental Health
Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 -$22,116 $118,111
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 $2,661 -$39,906 $173,042
Core Science Systems $111,550 $111,339 $1,021 -$19,391 $92,969
Science Support $105,611 $105,410 $1,082 -$17,124 $89,368
Facilities $100,421 $100,230 $11,963 $0 $112,193

USGS Total $1,062,000 $1,059,981 $21,777 --159,590 $922,168

The 2018 USGS budget request supports Interior’s mission for energy and mineral development;
promoting science to protect public safety, health, property; supporting land and water stewardship;
supporting tribal nations; and supporting infrastructure development.

The 2018 USGS budget request maintains critical monitoring networks that provides for the safety of the
American public and the resilience of the Nation’s infrastructure; these include the core earthquake and
volcano monitoring networks, and the national streamgage program. In addition, this 2018 budget request
provides a foundation for USGS prioritized research efforts that support management decisions within
Interior bureaus and other Federal agencies that depend on that information.

The 2018 budget request includes an estimated workforce reduction of 16 percent, from 4,923 to
4,114 Full Time Equivalents (FTE; this number does not include reimbursable FTEs). In
addition to appropriated funding, the USGS receives funding through reimbursable agreements
with other Federal agencies. However, funding reductions across the Federal government will
likely reduce the reimbursable funding that the USGS receives. The USGS current reimbursable

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification A-3
Executive Summary

workforce is estimated to reduce by an additional 10 percent, from 2,799 to 2,519 FTE. The USGS will
evaluate any reductions to our reimbursable programs as the impacts to its partners become known.

Our Nation’s Natural Resources

The USGS produces topographic and geological maps, geophysical and geochemical surveys, together
with scientific research on water, energy, and mineral resources to produce resource assessments vital
to understanding the natural wealth of the Nation. These analyses inform decision makers about the
Nation’s resource assets as well as those outside our borders that may impact our economy and security.
The USGS’s assessments increasingly include economic analysis. Private industry and government alike
utilize USGS data to make informed decisions about energy and mineral resource management. A variety
of USGS programs provide science to support energy and mineral resource management, including oil,
gas, coal, geothermal, uranium, and gas hydrate energy resource activities. The USGS also provides
critical information about mineral resource potential, production, and consumption, which is important to
the economic stability and the national security of the United States. The USGS maintains the core
functions related to energy and mineral resource assessments, including the underlying geological,
geophysical and geochemical research and mapping capability that underpins accurate assessment results,
while also yielding valuable information on the impacts of energy development.

The USGS maintains other bureau programs and activities including: biological and water resource
studies related to energy production. In support of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the bureau also maintains surveys and
studies of marine-hazards to assess risk to offshore energy infrastructure and operations, as well as
biological studies requests by BOEM. In 2018, the USGS would continue to conduct science to
distinguish real versus perceived impacts of byproducts of energy development; create targeted and
detailed geologic surveys and mapping of Western basins containing large natural gas fields; and conduct
surface and subsurface three-dimensional geologic mapping for energy, mineral, and oil and gas
assessments. The USGS would continue to provide critical information supporting the development of
energy and mineral resources while minimizing health risks due to potential contaminant and pathogen
exposures on fish and wildlife species of high interest for conservation or that are Interior Trust
obligations.

The USGS would also continue to conduct monitoring, assessments, and research in order to understand
and predict changes in the quality and quantity of water resources in response to land-use and
management scenarios. The USGS advances understanding and integrated modeling of processes that
determine water availability. The USGS would synthesize and report information at regional and national
scales, with an emphasis on compiling and reporting the information in a way that is useful to States and
others responsible for water management and natural resource issues. The USGS would continue to
support these assessments of surface water and ground water resources for America’s water stewardship
by providing high-resolution elevation and hydrography datasets and detailed geologic maps.

U.S. Geological Survey
A-4 2018 Budget Justification
Executive Summary

Land and Water Stewardship

The USGS provides science on the complex human, economic, and ecological dimensions of land and
water stewardship to help decision makers balance economic development with the Nation’s conservation
ethos regarding resources such as fish and wildlife, clean and abundant water, and thriving communities.
In 2018, the USGS would continue to produce multi-resource assessments to provide information for
decision makers who seek to balance multiple uses and understand trade-offs, particularly on public lands.

USGS science serves to protect and conserve our Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage. The USGS bridges
the gap between science and management for at-risk species and species of management concern. In
2018, the USGS would continue to work with a vast array of partners to provide science support to
management agencies designed to sustain the hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related sporting and
recreation needs of the public. The USGS data and science supports the hunting and recreational fishing
sectors that contribute $144 billion in expenditures and 480,000 American jobs (2017 National
Recreation Economy Report, Outdoor Industry Association). The USGS would continue to identify
conservation measures designed to preclude the need for listing species as endangered or threatened;
recover listed species; prevent or control invasive species and wildlife disease outbreaks; and apply
decision science so that management and policy actions will be transparent and durable. This work would
be supported by accurate and up-to-date digital geospatial data and maps, biogeographic (animals, plants,
and microbes) data, and map-on-demand services to the American people via The National Map and the
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US).

In 2018, the USGS would continue to collaborate with its Interior partners to inform managers and the
public about conditions of natural resources. Streamflow information on the USGS Web page
at waterdata.usgs.gov provides invaluable information for emergency managers, water resource decision
makers, paddlers, and anglers. Additionally, a new mobile-friendly Web site was created that would
allow users to quickly locate USGS streamgages that measure rainfall, streamflow, stream height or lake
levels so that users can get up-to-date information on water conditions near where they are located for
safety and situational awareness, water management decisions, and recreation.

The USGS would also continue to conduct monitoring, assessments, and research in order to understand
and predict changes in the quality and quantity of water resources in response to land-use and
management scenarios. The USGS advances understanding and integrated modeling of processes that
determine water availability. The USGS would synthesize and report information at regional and national
scales, with an emphasis on compiling and reporting the information in a way that is useful to States and
others responsible for water management and natural resource issues. The USGS would continue to
support these assessments of surface water and ground water sources for America’s water stewardship by
providing high-resolution elevation and hydrography datasets and detailed geologic maps.

The USGS also delivers data, tools, techniques, and analyses that advance our understanding of
landscapes, the forces that shape them, and the interactions of plants, animals, and the people that live
among them. Land managers use USGS science to understand and detect changes that affect resources
and processes that are essential to our Nation’s economic growth and societal well-being. The resulting
data and research products provide a scientific foundation for decisions about the management of natural

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification A-5
Executive Summary

and built landscapes and how they might be adapted to secure the Nation’s interests. In addition, the
USGS applies capabilities in marine geology, geochemistry and oceanography to provide information and
research products critical to the management of the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
environments.

In 2018, the USGS would also provide science to support understanding of potential health threats to
workers and visitors on public lands from environmental contaminants and pathogens. Examples
include helping understand occurrences, origins, and health implications of contaminants (such as harmful
algal toxins, metals, and other compounds) and pathogens in waters, rocks, soils, and dusts on public
lands. Key to this work would be increased collaborations between the USGS and health and safety
officials from other Interior offices and bureaus.

Tribal Nations

In 2018, the USGS would continue to work with Tribes to provide unbiased scientific information to meet
DOI Tribal Trust Responsibilities. The USGS also would provide information used by tribal managers
to address such topics as water rights, water supply, flood-warning predictions, contamination, and
disease mitigation to protect the health of Native populations, and sustainability of critical habitats and
health ecosystems. For example: monitoring within an extensive network of USGS streamflow gages and
groundwater monitoring stations; training; data management; Geographic Information Systems (GIS);
quality control; fish and wildlife assessment and monitoring; development of models and decision-
making tools; and scientific research on how natural, climatic, land use, water use, and other human
factors can affect the water cycle, water quantity, and quality.

USGS science would continue to help inform efforts to protect the health of Native populations, and the
fish and wildlife they rely on, from environmental contaminants and pathogens. The USGS would also
provide science to support understanding of potential health threats to workers and visitors on public
lands from environmental contaminants and pathogens—key to this work would be increased
collaborations between the USGS and health and safety officials from other Interior Offices and Bureaus.

The USGS recognizes the importance of Native knowledge and living in harmony with nature as
complements to the USGS mission to better understand the Earth. Combining traditional ecological
knowledge with empirical studies allows the USGS and Native American governments, organizations,
and people to increase their mutual understanding and respect for this land. The USGS provides
information to Tribes as part of the bureau’s basic mission of providing unbiased scientific information to
the Nation and the Federal Trust Responsibility to Tribes.

Protect Public Safety, Health, and Property

The USGS protects public safety, public health, and property by effectively delivering natural hazards and
environmental health science. In 2018, the USGS would continue to fulfill responsibilities for floods,
earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, landslides, coastal erosion, and wildfires. The USGS would
also provide non-regulatory, objective science to protect public health from natural- and human-sourced
disease agents in the environment. Every year, the United States faces natural and man-made disasters

U.S. Geological Survey
A-6 2018 Budget Justification
Executive Summary

that threaten the Nation through loss of life and property, as well as threats to America’s national security
and economic vitality. In such events, the Nation’s emergency managers and public officials look to
USGS science to inform them of the risks hazards pose to human-built and natural systems and how to
reduce losses, and improve response. Faced with rising expectations for rapid, robust information in
response to these events, the USGS has the science and mapping capabilities to meet these needs both
before and after disasters strike.

USGS natural hazards science informs a broad range of disaster planning, situational awareness and
response activities at local to global levels. Responsibilities in natural hazards include issuing warnings
and advisories for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and coastal erosion; informing warnings
issued by other agencies for floods, tsunami’s, and wildfires; providing timely information to emergency
managers and response officials, the media, and the public to inform and educate communities during and
between crises. Supporting activities in natural hazards science include: improving the data systems that
are critical to situational awareness; implementing 24x7 operations for critical monitoring efforts;
developing the next generation of tools for rapid evaluation of hazards; improving internal hazards
communication; evaluating our warning and response activities, involving the relevant communities; and
fostering the next generation of hazard scientists and technicians.

In 2018, USGS environmental health programs would continue to inform local, State, and national public
health protection efforts for threats posed by exposures of humans to emerging or complex mixtures of
environmental contaminants and pathogens, including those encountered during occupational and
recreational activities, and those contained in air, soil, food, and drinking water. For example, the USGS
would continue to provide science related to the mitigation of harmful algal blooms and the impacts of
harmful algal toxins in bodies of water across the Nation, and to understand the implications of
contaminants and pathogens produced by disasters on the health of humans and other organisms.
Furthermore, USGS science would contribute valuable insights to land and water managers responsible
for decisions related to sources, treatment methods, and conveyance of wastewaters and drinking waters
in public and private sites, including in our national parks. USGS ecological and environmental health
science would also continue to inform public health protection efforts for zoonotic and vector-borne
diseases, and diseases related to invasive species. For this public health work, the USGS would continue
collaborations with Federal health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.

USGS Infrastructure

The USGS owns 270 buildings, totaling about 1.3 million square feet. In addition to these buildings, the
USGS also owns another 283 structures and 8 large research vessels. The breadth of USGS constructed
assets is extraordinary, including satellite ground stations, volcano observatories, a nuclear reactor, 8,200
streamgages, 18,600 groundwater wells, 2,000 water quality stations, and thousands of seismic
monitoring network locations across the United States, its territories, and beyond. Many of these assets
are in remote locations, such as uninhabited islands and mountainous terrain, increasing the challenge of
maintaining operation of critical networks and data collection. Approximately 60 percent of USGS-
owned buildings are over 40-years old and many USGS-owned assets will require significant investment

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification A-7
Executive Summary

to modernize the infrastructure in order for the USGS to continue to produce world-class science. The
USGS is in the process of developing modernization plans for its aging facilities portfolio.

Management and Efficiencies

The USGS is proposing to restructure the Climate and Land Use Mission Area into the Land Resources
Mission Area. This allows the USGS to focus on its core functions and capabilities, including classifying
and examining land and associated resources/products of national interest; detecting and understanding
changes in lands and associated resources/products; and delivering scientific information in forms/formats
that are relevant to and capable of being used by land and natural resource planners, managers, and
decision makers. Refer to the Technical Adjustments, Section B, for more details.

The USGS's 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) is a unique collaboration between all levels of government
and the private sector to leverage the services and expertise of private sector mapping firms to acquire
high-resolution elevation data. When federal and non-federal partners work together to map it once and
use the data many times, they can achieve efficiencies and lower costs. When 3D elevation data are
available to everyone, new innovations will occur in protecting infrastructure and natural resources, and
improving forest resource management, public safety, agriculture, and other industries for years to come.
The 3DEP's collaboration efforts, supported by geospatial liaisons from across the United States are
critical for coordinating with Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and private industry users to
obtain matching funds (approximately four partner dollars for each USGS dollar invested). This strategy
effectively leverages Federal dollars through partnerships to support land and water stewardship, security,
and enable job creation. The economic benefit of high-resolution elevation data is tremendous to our
partners across all sectors. Estimates by the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (Dewberry, 2012),
indicate a fully funded 3DEP would result in an economic benefit of $690 million annually.

Similarly, the USGS's leads a unique collaboration between State Geological Surveys and universities to
achieve efficiencies in producing three-dimensional geologic mapping and models that help to create
private sector jobs, fuel American economic opportunities, and support a 21st-century economy based on
energy, minerals, and oil and gas resource assessments. The USGS has over 20 years of successful
cooperation among Federal (FEDMAP), State (STATEMAP), and university (EDMAP) partners to
deliver digital geologic maps to the public. Each of these three components has a unique role per the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, yet all work cooperatively to select and map high-
priority areas for new geologic maps. Annually, the USGS works cooperatively with approximately 45
different State Geological Surveys and 20 to 25 different universities throughout the country. State
geological surveys and university participants receive funding through a competitive proposal process that
requires 1:1 matching funds, ensuring the value of each proposal is weighed against its cost in Federal and
State appropriated funds.

Fixed Costs

The fixed costs increase for the USGS in 2018 is $21.8 million, and includes $9.8 million to pay for
personnel-related costs and nearly $12 million to cover increased rents costs. More information on the

U.S. Geological Survey
A-8 2018 Budget Justification
Executive Summary

USGS contribution to the Department’s Working Capital Fund is located in Sundry Exhibits, Section Q.
The fixed costs calculations are located in the USGS Exhibits, Section O. Cost saving projects have
resulted in a smaller facilities footprint and have reduced the USGS’s rent costs; however, GSA rental
rates are projected to escalate in the San Francisco Bay Area. More information on rented facilities,
owned facilities and their operation and maintenance, and cost saving projects is located in Facilities,
Section M.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification A-9
Executive Summary

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
A-10 2018 Budget Justification
Technical
Adjustments
And Internal
Transfers
Technical Adjustments

Technical Adjustments
The USGS has two technical adjustments in the 2018 President’s budget request:
• Restructuring the Climate and Land Use Mission Area (CLU) into the Land Resources Mission
Area (LRMA). The 2018 President’s budget request contains a number of internal transfers
related to the CLU to LR restructure.

• Renaming of the Coastal and Marine Geology Program (CMGP) to the Coastal-Marine Hazards
and Resources Program (CMHRP) to convey the work of the program.

Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area/Land Resources Mission Area
Budget Restructure

The 2018 President’s budget proposes to restructure the Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area.
This restructure is necessary to allow us to more effectively operate under the proposed 2018 funding
levels within the President’s request. The change conveys the work that the programs within Land
Resources will be focusing on in 2018.

The table below provides a map of the changes from the old to the new structure and the descriptions that
follow provide an overview of the proposed subactivities:

Climate and Land Use Mission Area Land Resources Mission Area
Climate Variability Subactivity N/A
National Climate Change and Wildlife National and Regional Climate Adaptation
Science Center/ DOI Climate Science Centers Science Centers Subactivity
Program Element
Climate Research and Development Program N/A (Funding transferred to Land Change Science
Element and projects retained in the 2018 request will be
funded in that subactivity)
Carbon Sequestration Program Element N/A (Funding transferred to Land Change Science
where Biologic Carbon Sequestration will be
eliminated. The remaining program functions for
Geologic Carbon Sequestration will be transferred
to the Energy Resources Program)
Land Use Change Subactivity N/A
Land Remote Sensing Program Element National Land Imaging Subactivity
Land Change Science Program Element Land Change Science Subactivity

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification B-1
Technical Adjustments

Land Resources (Formerly Climate and Land Use Change)

The 2018 President’s budget realigns the existing CLU mission area, focusing a narrower set of scientific
activities to meet priority stakeholder needs. This recalibration of the science of these program
necessitates a restructure of functions, capabilities, and activities. In CLU’s place, the Land Resources
Mission Area will focus on classifying and examining land and associated resources/products of national
interest; detecting and understanding changes in lands and associated resources/products; and delivering
scientific information in forms/formats that are relevant to and capable of being used by land and natural
resource planners, managers, and decision makers.

The following are summaries of each of the renamed/scoped programs and their relationship to one
another:

The National Land Imaging Program (NLI) subactivity delivers the remote sensing observation
capacity, data, and research required to understand how landscapes and associated natural resources are
changing at grand scales. It collects, archives, and distributes a broad array of data from near-Earth and
satellite-based remote sensing platforms. The NLIP provides long-term records of changes in landscapes,
real-time change-detection capabilities, and associated interpretive tools that decision makers need for
land and resource management decisions.

The Land Change Science Program (LCSP) subactivity conducts research required to understand the
forces that shape landscapes and their potential uses, to distinguish between land surface change resulting
from natural forces and those that are associated with land use decisions, and to provide the scientific
bases for land use decisions that affect the safety of communities, economic prosperity, and natural
resources of the Nation. It delivers research products, information, and computer programs that help
decision makers understand, interpret, and apply the knowledge and data gained from on-the-ground and
remote sensing observation systems to land use planning, natural resource management, and adaptation
planning decisions.

The National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers subactivity is the organizing entity
within USGS for the National Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCASC) and DOI’s regional
Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs). These centers deliver the on-the-ground observations
and research required to understand how changes in climate, land uses, and associated changes in land
cover are affecting the Nation’s natural resources and associated populations of fish and wildlife species
essential to the Nation’s natural heritage. It provides information essential to the development of tools
and applications that help resource managers understand which observed changes are meaningful, what
the observations suggest about the condition and sustainability of natural resources, and what can be done
to support conservation priorities of the Nation.

Collectively, the subactivities within the Land Resources Mission Area (LRMA) deliver ground-based
data and analyses, remotely sensed data and analyses, investigative research, and tools and applications
necessary for science-based decisions related to stewardship of lands, natural resources, and their uses in
support of economic prosperity consistent with shared conservation ethic.

U.S. Geological Survey
B-2 2018 Budget Justification
Technical Adjustments

The table shown below is a crosswalk of the old and new budget structure within CLU, using 2018
funding levels.

PROPOSED
Land Resources

National Climate Adaptation

Climate Adaptation Science
Science Center & Regional
National Land Imaging

Land Change Science
Fiscal Year 2018
dollars in thousands

Energy Resources
Program

Program

Centers
National Climate Change & Wildlife
$17,435
Climate & Land Use Change

Science Centers / DOI CSCs

Climate Research and Development $10,311
CURRENT

Carbon Sequestration 1 +$1,477

Land Remote Sensing $76,127

Land Change Science $8,974

2018 Request Levels in New Structure $76,127 $19,285 $17,435 +$1,477

The 2018 President’s budget is presented in the proposed new structure. The tables below are provided
for comparison purposes.

The Land Resources Mission Area chapter presents the program, the summary of proposed changes, the
activity and program overview, and the performance changes in the new structure.

1
The funding in the Land Change Science Program that remains from Carbon Sequestration program will transfer (through a
technical adjustment) to the Energy and Minerals Program as part of the 2018 President’s request. The Carbon Sequestration line
will be $0 after the transfer and is not shown in the new structure in this exhibit.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification B-3
Technical Adjustments

New Budget Activities %
$000 2018 Change Change
2016 Budget from from
Actual 2017 CR Request 2017 CR 2017 CR
Land Resources
National Land Imaging Program 72,194 72,057 76,127 4,070 6%
Land Change Science Program 41,346 41,267 19,285 -21,982 -53%
National and Regional Climate
26,435 26,385 17,435 -8,950 -34%
Adaptation Science Centers
Total 139,975 139,709 112,847 -26,862 -19%

Former Budget Activities %
$000 2018 Change Change
2016 Budget from from
Actual 2017 CR Request 2017 CR 2017 CR
Climate and Land Use Change
National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center/DOI 26,435 26,385 17,435 -8,950 -34%
Climate Science Centers (CSC’s)
Climate Research and Development 21,495 21,454 0 -21,454 -100%
Carbon Sequestration 9,359 9,341 0 -9,341 -100%
Land Remote Sensing 72,194 72,057 76,127 4,070 6%
Land Change Science 10,492 10,492 19,285 8,813 84%
Total Land Resources 139,975 139,709 112,847 -26,862 -19%

U.S. Geological Survey
B-4 2018 Budget Justification
Technical Adjustments

Natural Hazards

Within the Natural Hazards Mission Areas, the USGS proposes to change the name of the Coastal and
Marine Geology Program (CMGP) to the Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program (CMHRP).
There are no funding changes based on this name change. This change reflects the connection between
the critically important hazards-related activities such as offshore earthquake and tsunami hazards as well
as coastal changes hazards due to extreme storms. This also highlights the priority work conducted in the
Program addressing to offshore resources, including work related to identifying the extended shelf of the
United States and evaluating methane hydrates as a potential energy source.

PROPOSED
Fiscal Year 2018
dollars in thousands
Coastal/Marine Hazards and
Resources
CURRENT

Coastal and Marine
$35,774
Geology Program

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification B-5
Technical Adjustments

Other Internal Transfers
USGS Internal Transfers
2017
Program FTE
Subactivity Internal Transfer
Change Changes
Amount
Internal Transfer: Increase 32,272 163
Land Change Science Transfer from Climate Research and Development 21,454 119
Land Change Science Transfer from Carbon Sequestration 9,341 37
Energy Program Transfer from Land Use Change 1,477 7
Internal Transfer: Decrease -32,272 -163
Climate Research and Development Transfer to Land Change Science -21,454 -119
Carbon Sequestration Transfer to Land Change Science -9,341 -37
Land Change Science Transfer to Energy Program -1,477 -7
Internal Transfer Total 0 0

Internal Transfer from the former Climate and Research and Development Program to Land
Change Science Program ($21,454,000/119 FTE): Paleontological, biogeochemical, and geographic
expertise previously funded by the Climate Research and Development Program will be utilized by the
Land Change Science Program (LCSP) to conduct investigations, deliver datasets, and support the
development of geospatial tools intended to support delivery of research and data required to: understand
the forces that shape landscapes and their potential uses; distinguish between changes resulting from
natural forces and those that are associated with land use decisions; and to provide the scientific bases for
decisions related to land use decisions that affect the safety of communities, economic prosperity, and
natural resources of the Nation. Examples of projects to be transferred to the LCSP include development
of land use and land cover change projection tools designed to help resource managers anticipate, plan
for, and adapt to changes in climate and associated resource management challenges; development of
geological data sets that can be used to understand how landscapes and associated natural resources have
been affected by past variations in climate, water availability, and natural disturbances over time to
improve understandings of our Nation’s present vulnerabilities to similar variations and the threats they
pose to economic prosperity and natural heritage; and investigations of arctic landscapes and the
challenges that changes in temperatures and water availability might present for the development, use,
and conservation of natural resources. Of the amounts transferred, $11.1 million and 54 FTE of Climate
R&D will be proposed for termination.

Internal Transfer from the former Carbon Sequestration Program to Land Change Science
Program ($9,341,000/37 FTE): The USGS Carbon Sequestration Program focuses on two aspects of
carbon sequestration: biologic carbon sequestration and geologic carbon sequestration. The biologic
carbon sequestration project focuses on the science behind removing carbon from the atmosphere and
storing it in vegetation (particularly forests and wetlands), soil and sediments, and aquatic environments.
The geologic carbon sequestration project researches the effects and capacity of pumping CO 2 deep
underground: Will it induce seismic activity; what are the potential benefits in terms of enhanced oil
recovery; how much CO 2 can be stored underground and where is it most feasible; and will the CO 2

U.S. Geological Survey
B-6 2018 Budget Justification
Technical Adjustments

storage affect drinking water? Authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007
(P.L. 110-140), which calls for the USGS to develop a methodology for, and then complete a national
assessment of, the geologic storage capacity for CO 2 . It also directed Interior to conduct a national
assessment to quantify the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems, the capacity of ecosystems to sequester
additional carbon, and the rate of greenhouse gases fluxes in and out of the ecosystems (biologic carbon
sequestration). Of the amounts transferred, $7.9 million of the carbon sequestration research will be
proposed for reduction.

Internal Transfer from the Land Resources Mission Area, Land Change Science Program to the
Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area, Energy Resources Program ($1,477,000/7 FTE):
Carbon Sequestration – Geologic Research and Assessments project work will continue after transfer to
the Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area. The project will work on a national assessment of the
technically recoverable hydrocarbon resources resulting from CO 2 injection and storage through CO 2 -
enhanced oil recovery. The goals of this work are to: (1) complete and publish an assessment
methodology; (2) conduct a national assessment of recoverable oil and associated CO 2 storage that is
expected in future CO 2 -enhanced oil recovery operations; and (3) publish the assessment results. In
addition this funding will allow for a limited amount research on improving the geologic and technical
foundation of CO 2 storage in various geologic basins.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification B-7
Technical Adjustments

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
B-8 2018 Budget Justification
USGS Science
Collaboration
Science Collaboration

Science Collaboration
The USGS works collaboratively with other
Interior bureaus and Federal agencies to identify
and address issues of importance to the Nation.
USGS researchers handle an
invasive Burmese python in the
Everglades National Park.

Introduction

Created by an Organic Act of Congress in 1879, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has
evolved over the last 138 years into a bureau with a mission to deliver integrated scientific understanding
and forecasts of natural systems to improve the Nation’s economic well-being; reduce societal risks to
hazards; support resilient infrastructure and natural resource security; and inform strategies for adapting
to changing landscapes. The USGS provides reliable scientific information for the common good of its
Federal, State, tribal, and local partners and the American people.

Scientific coordination and collaboration is central to the USGS's science mission. USGS is the sole
science agency for the Department of the Interior. Thousands of Federal, State, local, and tribal
governments, the private sector, and non-governmental organization partners seek out the USGS for its
natural science expertise; its vast Earth and biological data holdings; and unbiased scientific analyses and
publications. As a non-regulatory entity, the USGS provides objective, credible scientific research and
analysis that Federal agencies and Interior bureaus with regulatory responsibilities use to make informed
decisions based on sound science. The USGS contributes valuable expertise to these collaborations,
filling in the knowledge gaps that the USGS is uniquely capable of addressing.

By leveraging efficiencies across various Federal, State, local, tribal, and industry sectors, the USGS
provides thorough and accurate science—tailor-made to address some of America's most pressing
challenges of the 21st century. The USGS enters into scientific partnerships, making the best use of
limited resources to further national priorities including:
• The Nation’s natural resources, including energy, minerals, and water.
• Stewardship, including recreation and sporting, and tribal nations.
• Science to protect public safety, health, and property, including natural hazards and
environmental health.
• Infrastructure, including development and construction.
• Management and efficiencies.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification C-1
Science Collaboration

As America seeks to solve these challenges, the USGS provides sound decision-ready science in a timely
manner to inform multi-entity collaborations on issues affecting energy and mineral resource assessments,
infrastructure development, public health and safety, community resilience, and sustainable economies.
Examples include:
• Conducting monitoring and assessments associated with natural hazards as well as assessing and
researching coastal impacts and resources.
• Assessing the availability and recoverability of oil, gas, and other energy resources.
• Assessing the sources and life cycles of critical minerals that are increasing in importance with
the emergence of new technologies.
• Providing the tools for communities to plan for increased pressures on available water supplies,
including drought.
• Developing the basis for an improved ability to project the availability of water for future
economic, energy production, and environmental uses.
• Creating the foundation for addressing multiple emerging Federal, State, tribal, and local
governments, and private industry requirements for infrastructure, energy, and water demands
through the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP).
• Building a high-quality geologic mapping framework to understand the distribution and quantity
of mineral resources and inform resource management.
• Providing tools for early detection and control of invasive species and wildlife disease.
• Providing science to help protect the health of visitors and workers on Federal lands, and science
to protect the health of Native populations and the fish and wildlife they rely on for nutrition,
from environmental contaminants and pathogens.
• Engaging the next generation to build a 21st century workforce.

Examples of USGS Science Coordination and Collaborations

The USGS collaborates with its partners to provide valuable science for decision making. The following
section offers a snapshot of a cross-section of the USGS’s science coordination activities with other
Interior bureaus, and Federal, State, tribal, and local partners.

The Nation’s Natural Resources
Critical Minerals: The USGS collaborates with a number of external organizations to leverage the
expertise and contributions of partners toward the goal of a more thorough understanding of the
Nation’s mineral potential, production, and consumption. The USGS has been closely involved with
the development of a critical mineral early warning screening tool in collaboration with Federal
agency partners (including the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Commerce, among others) and industry stakeholders. This tool is essential for
decision makers to understand the supply and availability of critical minerals upon which the Nation
depends for products ranging from smartphones to advanced national defense systems. The United

U.S. Geological Survey
C-2 2018 Budget Justification
Science Collaboration

States is 100 percent dependent upon foreign countries for its supply of 20 critical mineral
commodities, and more than 50 percent dependent upon imports for an additional 30 critical minerals.
Therefore, the collaboration between the USGS and its Federal and industry partners to develop the
critical minerals early warning system has been important to United States’ national security and
economic prosperity.

Unconventional Energy Resource Assessments: The USGS works with Federal agencies, including
the U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies, on a scientific research collaboration project
designed to better understand our Nation’s unconventional oil and gas (UOG) resources and their
impacts. Through the Federal Multiagency Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas, the USGS
provides research to understand the availability and recoverability of unconventional oil and gas
resources across the Nation, and works with its Federal partners to leverage the scientific expertise of
each agency toward the goal of a holistic understanding of UOG development so that decision makers
will have thorough and accurate scientific data upon which to base their domestic energy policy
decisions.

Energy Development: The USGS collaborates with the State of Wyoming, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, non-governmental organizations, industry, and communities to
assess and facilitate responsible natural gas development by providing science and technical
assistance to partners; and with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on the science needed for
making decisions in the outer continental shelf that balance fisheries management and energy
development.

Archival Resources for Industry: The USGS's Core Research Center, located in the Denver Federal
Center, houses rock cores and samples from 63,000 wells representing over 242 million linear feet of
subsurface rock strata from 36 States. The USGS's geologic samples provide an invaluable archive to
both the private and public sector for oil, gas, and mineral exploration; infrastructure development;
and water resource management. In 2016, 57 percent of the users represented industry researchers
who revisit reservoirs that were once considered tight or depleted and to reevaluate the potential for
further oil and gas production with new technology, by re-analyzing the USGS's archived rock cores.
Mining professionals also analyze existing, ore-rich rock cores to determine the value of pursuing
extraction.

Offshore Energy: The USGS collaborates with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on
science needed for making decisions in the outer continental shelf for fisheries management and
energy development; and with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service to assess the risk
associated with alternatives for sighting offshore wind development.

Water Resources: The USGS provides science information and assessments of surface and ground
water availability and quality for the Nation to Tribes, the National Park Service, U.S. the Fish and
Wildlife Service, NOAA, and many other stakeholders.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification C-3
Science Collaboration

Land and Water Stewardship
Water Conservation: Water is a fundamental natural resource; it circumscribes economic
opportunities and is integral to the quality of our lives and the health of our environment. The USGS
collaborates with States, Tribes, and local communities to address competing demands for water by
helping improve conservation and increase water availability, restore watersheds, and resolve long
standing water conflicts.

Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow: The hydrologic cycle (i.e., the
continuous movement of water above, on, and below the surface of the Earth) is a continuous process
that often is not confined to any single political jurisdiction. Effective water stewardship and the
governance of water use—and its reusability—therefore requires horizontal collaboration and
cooperation across departments and sectors within a vertical hierarchy of local, State, and national
interests. The USGS brings research strengths in resource assessments and surface water monitoring
for America's end users – such as State, local, and tribal resource managers enabling effective water
management among all sectors and stakeholders that depend on water.

The USGS's develops new water accounting tools and assesses water availability at the regional and
national scales. Through the National Water Census, the USGS is integrating diverse research on
water availability and use and enhancing the understanding of connection between water quality and
water availability. Research is designed to build decision support capacity for water management
agencies and other natural resource managers. In addition, Geographic Focus Area Studies between
the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation, provides the framework Interior needs to successfully join
the related water resource programs of its bureaus and offices in pursuit of a single unifying purpose:
to secure a sustainable water future for the nation.

Coastal Erosion: The Coastal-Marine Hazards and Resources Program has worked with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; Corps) to leverage USGS expertise about beach processes and
responsibilities for forecasting beach change assisting USACE's role in coordinating beach
nourishment projects. The USGS and USACE are working with the American Shore and Beach
Preservation Association to discuss plans for development of a new Coastal Resiliency Network and
to support collaborative research on coastal risk and vulnerability. The goal is to use the wealth of
data that already exists in the Corps, the USGS, and other Federal agencies to quantify coastal
resiliency and predict changes through time. Additionally, the USGS and USACE are collaborating
on identifying ways to streamline and improve procedures for transforming raw lidar data into useful
data products.

Harmful Algal Blooms and Harmful Algal Toxins: The USGS currently leads a diverse range of
multi-disciplinary studies to address harmful algal bloom and harmful algal toxin issues in water
bodies throughout the Nation, including the following: developing field and laboratory methods to
identify and quantify harmful algal blooms and associated toxins; understanding causal factors,
environmental fate and transport, ecological processes, and effects of environmental exposure; and
developing early warning systems for potentially harmful blooms. Study approaches use a
combination of traditional methods and emerging technologies, including advanced analytical
techniques, stable isotopes, molecular techniques, sensor technology, and satellite imagery. Studies

U.S. Geological Survey
C-4 2018 Budget Justification
Science Collaboration

range in scale from laboratory experiments on individual water bodies, to studies that are regional or
national in scope, and are completed in collaboration with local, State, Federal, tribal, non-
governmental organizations, and industry partners.

Figure 1: The USGS has conducted cyanobacterial harmful algal bloom studies at thousands of
sites throughout the Nation since the mid-1990s. Studies range in scope, from local to national,
and have been completed in collaboration with local, State, Federal, tribal, academic, non-
governmental organization, and industry partners. Source: USGS.

Recent examples of USGS harmful algal bloom/harmful algal toxin science include:
• Developing a variety of approaches to quantify harmful algae and associated toxins including
field protocols, field guides, taxonomy, sample preparation techniques, advanced analytical
techniques, and molecular tools.
• Operating a network of about 80 sensors that measure algae in near real-time in high-valued
water bodies used for recreation and drinking water throughout the Nation.
• Conducting National- and regional-scale assessments to show the widespread occurrence of
multiple algal toxins in a diverse range of settings across the Nation.
• Characterizing the environmental persistence, fate, and transport of harmful algae and associated
compounds (e.g., harmful algal toxins). USGS studies have documented impacts hundreds of
miles downstream from lakes reporting harmful blooms.
• Performing integrated ecosystem studies that use tools such as stable isotopes, genetics, and
sensors, in additional to traditional approaches, to better understand environmental drivers of
harmful algal bloom formation in lakes, rivers, and estuaries throughout the Nation.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification C-5
Science Collaboration

• Quantifying impacts of harmful blooms on aquatic organisms, including threatened and
endangered species.
• Collaborating with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NOAA, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to develop an early warning indicator, called the Cyanobacteria
Assessment Network (CyAN), of freshwater and estuarine algal blooms using satellite
information to aid expedient public health advisories.

Land Imaging: The National Land Imaging (NLI) Program advances the science and methods for
collecting, analyzing, and understanding user needs in order to motivate agility in its product and
service portfolio. The program collaborates with many Federal partners including Interior bureaus,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NOAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency on remote sensing science. Landsat is a
valuable tool for many Federal partners providing them with information that enhances their ability to
meet their mission. For example, the USDA uses Landsat imagery to estimate crop production and
monitor water use for agricultural production. Landsat imagery is also used to develop the USDA’s
Cropland Data Layer, a crop-specific land cover classification product, and USDA’s Satellite Imagery
Archive. NLI works with users to better understand their needs for land imaging observations,
products, and services; through the Interior Remote Sensing Working Group and other venues, NLI
works with various Interior bureaus to seek input on its new products and land imaging initiatives in
order to better meet user needs. Interior bureaus use Landsat satellite data and products for work
including: drought, invasive species, fire mitigation, water use and availability information, and
energy and mineral development.

Geologic Mapping with States: The USGS, along with State and university partners, share the
common responsibility identified in the National Geologic Mapping Act, of 1992, to collaborate and
expedite the production of a geologic map database for the Nation applicable to land-use
management, assessment, and utilization and conservation of natural resources, groundwater
management, and public safety. Annually, the USGS works cooperatively with approximately 45
different State geological surveys and 20-25 different universities throughout the country to select and
map high-priority areas for new geologic maps.

Mapping Public Lands: The Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the
Nation's inventory of public parks (including National Parks) and other protected open space. With
more than three billion acres in 150,000 locations, the spatial data within the PAD-US represents
public lands managed by national, State, regional, and local governments, as well as non-profit
conservation organizations. PAD-US informs critical decisions in habitat management, recreation,
public health, and wildfire planning and response by groups such as the National Park Service, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and National Wildfire Coordinating Group. The
accuracy and accessibility of PAD-US make it one of the vital engines behind scientific analysis of
issues involving land management and conservation practice for government, academic, commercial,
and non-profit science.

U.S. Geological Survey
C-6 2018 Budget Justification
Science Collaboration

Wildlife Management: USGS science is needed by agencies to determine appropriate harvest levels
by hunters, manage disease outbreaks in both wildlife and domestic animals, ensure public safety, and
manage wildlife on National Refuges, National Parks, and BLM Units.

Wildlife-Related Recreation: The unique role of the Cooperative Research Unit’s Program (CRU)
is exemplified by the agency partnerships and integration of its work into management decision
making. Each Unit is owned collectively by its cooperators, made up of Interior agencies, the State
natural resource agency, and the university. Collaborative work conducted by the CRUs provides
science support to management agencies designed to sustain the hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related
recreation needs of the public that account for $144 billion dollars in expenditures and 480,000
American jobs (2017 National Recreation Economy Report, Outdoor Industry Association).

Tribal Fisheries, Water Uses, and the Environment: The USGS evaluates habitat projects
designed to enhance anadromous fish populations (i.e., fish born in fresh water, spending adult life in
the sea, and returning to fresh water to spawn; salmon, smelt, shad, striped bass, and sturgeon are
common examples) by tribal partners, including the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribe,
and the Yakama Nation to most effectively target limited financial resources. The USGS collaborates
with work related to water availability issues on tribal lands in order to address such topics as water
rights, water use, hydrologic conditions, and water-quality issues. In addition, USGS cooperative
activities related to energy and water enhance local cooperative studies related to regional drought
and enhance data collection related to tribal water issues. In addition, environmental factors are
recognized drivers of Native health. USGS Environmental Health science, in collaboration with
Federal, State, local, and tribal partners, helps inform efforts to protect the health of Native
populations, and the fish and wildlife they rely on as sources of nutrition, from environmental
contaminants and pathogens.

Public Safety and Security
Earthquake Hazards: Through National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, (NEHRP), the
USGS partners with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Science
Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to reduce earthquake
losses in the United States. For example, the USGS partners with FEMA and NIST in the
development and updating of building codes, based on USGS earthquake hazard science. The USGS
ShakeMap product, which provides rapid situational awareness of earthquake ground motions, is sent
directly to numerous businesses, utilities, lifeline operators, response officials, and State and local
government agencies, and is imported directly into FEMA’s HAZUS software for detailed estimation
of earthquake impacts.

Mapping for Disaster Response: The USGS offers world-class science capabilities to support the
Department of Defense (DOD). Since 2003, the USGS has partnered with the U.S. Northern
Command (USNORTHCOM) to facilitate science support in the event of a major natural disaster.
One key product that now supports USNORTHCOM and other DOD partners during a natural
disaster is the USGS topographic map or US Topo, which the USGS provides to DOD through a
partnership with the Defense Logistics Agency. This new capability enables immediate requests and
delivery of this USGS resource to the impacted area.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification C-7
Science Collaboration

Providing Critical Information during Flooding: Through the Groundwater and Streamflow
Information Program, the USGS operates more than 8,200 streamgages that provides data for flood
forecasting, flood-control operations, and disaster mitigation and recovery. The river stage and
streamflow discharge data that the USGS collects and disseminates are crucial to the reliability of
National Weather Service (NWS) river and flood forecasts by enabling the adjustment and validation of
flood models. USGS data also support the operation of water control structures by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) and numerous other water managers by providing real-time validation of water
releases. USGS personnel routinely perform maintenance of streamgage equipment and make manual
measurements of streamflow discharge during flooding events. These activities are even more critical
during times of flood, especially when flows are above the peak flow of record. The USGS provided this
critical data recently during the significant flooding that occurred from Arkansas to Indiana beginning in
April-May 2017.

Figure 2 --USGS streamgages reporting flow above NWS minor, moderate, and major flood stage from
April 27 to May 2, 2017.

Infrastructure
Invasive Species Impacts to the Built Environment: USGS scientists partner with Interior and
other Federal, State, tribal, territorial agencies, non-governmental entities, and private industry to help
solve problems posed by invasive species. Invasive species cause broad-scale negative ecological,
agricultural, cultural, human health and quality of life impacts. Similarly, damaging impacts of
invasive species on the Nation’s economy, infrastructure, energy, water resources, and military
readiness are significant. Every year, invasive species cost the United States billions of dollars in
economic losses and other damages. The USGS joins the above-mentioned entities to combat
invasive species from a Federal perspective by investigating (1) new and emerging priorities of
national concern; (2) early detection and rapid response; (3) innovative control technologies; and (4)
cost-effective techniques for prevention, eradication, control and restoration. The USGS’s invasive

U.S. Geological Survey
C-8 2018 Budget Justification
Science Collaboration

species efforts provide resource managers within, and outside, Interior tools and guidance to control
invasive species negatively impacting the Nation’s trust resources.

Science for Safe Drinking Water and other Public Health Infrastructure on Public Lands: The
USGS's Environmental Health science helps inform upgrades to wastewater and drinking water
treatment infrastructure, road building, and other facilities improvements on public lands. The USGS
Environmental Health Mission Area works with Federal partners such as the National Park Service,
as well as State and local agencies to provide critical science on issues related to infrastructure and
health on public lands.

Management and Efficiencies
USGS Environmental Health science ultimately helps enhance efficiency and management of
Department of Interior activities, by informing decision making, reducing costs, and balancing
regulatory burdens with opportunities to protect health—including protecting the health of Interior
workers on Federal lands. Examples include helping understand occurrences, origins, and health
implications of contaminants (such as harmful algal toxins, metals, and other compounds) and
pathogens in waters, rocks, soils, and dusts on public lands. The USGS Environmental Health
Mission Area works with the Department of the Interior – Office of Occupational Safety and Health,
the National Park Service – Office of Public Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others, on these activities.

The USGS, via the 3DEP Executive Forum, facilitates executive dialog and collaboration on
strategies to implement and sustain 3DEP for the benefit of its Federal stakeholders and the broader
community. The Forum is comprised of representatives from 14 Federal agencies that support 3DEP
goals for nationwide data coverage.

The USGS-led Alaska Mapping Executive Committee meets regularly to coordinate on critical
Alaska topographic mapping activities. Executives from 15 Federal agencies and the State of Alaska
are combining efforts to acquire new digital elevation, hydrography, transportation, shoreline and
geopositional data for Alaska, and create a new digital topographic map series for the State.

The USGS and the U.S. Forest Service share data for mapping purposes to create more consistent and
current products. This collaboration reduces costs for map production and results in more consistent
products.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification C-9
Science Collaboration

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
C-10 2018 Budget Justification
Budget at a Glance
Budget at a Glance

Budget at a Glance
(Dollars in Thousands)
2017 2018
2016 Fixed Internal Program
CR Budget
Actual Costs Transfer Changes
Annualized Request
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
Ecosystems
Status and Trends Program 20,473 20,434 206 0 -3,806 16,834
Eliminate Curation of Smithsonian Museum Collections -1,600
Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research -2,000
Reduce Status and Trends Program Operations -206
Fisheries Program 20,886 20,846 253 0 -5,253 15,846
Eliminate Unconventional Oil and Gas Research -1,000
Reduce Contaminants Research -500
Reduce Species-Specific Fisheries Research -3,500
Reduce Wildlife Program Operations -253
Wildlife Program 45,757 45,670 508 0 -10,707 35,471
Eliminate Whooping Crane Propagation Program -1,500
Reduce Contaminants Research -500
Reduce Changing Arctic Ecosystems Research and Monitoring -1,600
Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research -6,599
Wildlife Operations -508
Environments Program 38,415 38,342 392 0 -9,392 29,342
Reduce Ecosystem Services Tool Development and Case Studies -1,000
Reduce Greater Everglades Research and Monitoring -5,000
Reduce Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring -3,000
Reduce Environments Program Operations -392
Invasive Species Program 17,330 17,297 127 0 -127 17,297
Reduce Invasive Species Program Operations -127
Cooperative Research Units Program 17,371 17,338 262 0 -262 17,338
Reduce Cooperative Research Units Program Operations -262
Total, Ecosystems 160,232 159,927 1,748 0 -29,547 132,128
Land Resources
National Land Imaging Program 72,194 72,057 340 0 3,730 76,127
Landsat 9 Ground System Development 22,400
Eliminate Support for National Civil Applications Center -4,847
Reduce Satellite Operations -8,996
Eliminate AmericaView State Grant Programs -1,215
Reduce Science Research and Investigations -3,272
Reduce National Land Imaging Operations -340
Land Change Science Program 41,346 41,267 122 -1,477 -20,627 19,285
Transfer from Climate Research and Development 21,454
Transfer from Carbon Sequestration 9,341
Eliminate Biologic Carbon Sequestration -5,237
Transfer to Energy -1,477
Reduce Geologic Carbon Sequestration -2,627
Eliminate Landscape Science Projects -1,498
Eliminate Climate Research and Development Activities -11,143
Reduce Land Change Science Operations -122
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers 26,435 26,385 140 0 -9,090 17,435
Eliminate Support for National Phenology Network -250
Eliminate Support for GeoData Portal at Office of Water Infrastructure -200
Realign the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers -8,500
Reduce National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers Operations -140
Total, Land Resources 139,975 139,709 602 -1,477 -25,987 112,847

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification D-1
Budget at a Glance

Budget at a Glance
(Dollars in Thousands)
2017 2018
2016 Fixed Internal Program
CR Budget
Actual Costs Transfer Changes
Annualized Request
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health
Energy and Mineral Resources 73,066 72,927 934 1,477 -934 74,404
Mineral Resources Program 48,371 48,279 644 0 -644 48,279
Reduce Mineral Resources Program Operations -644
Energy Resources Program 24,695 24,648 290 1,477 -290 26,125
Reduce Energy Resources Program Operations -290
Subtotal: Mineral and Energy Resources 73,066 72,927 934 1,477 -934 74,404
Environmental Health 21,445 21,404 287 0 -4,585 17,106
Contaminant Biology Program 10,197 10,178 139 0 -2,087 8,230
Reduce Contaminant Research -1,948 [1,042]

Reduce Contaminant Biology Program Operations -139 0
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program 11,248 11,226 148 0 -2,498 8,876
Eliminate Radioactive Waste Disposal Science in Support of Energy and Land and
-700
Water Stewardship
Eliminate Municipal Wastewater Science to Support Land and
-100
Water Stewardship and Infrastructure
Eliminate Contaminant Science in Support of Water and Land Stewardship,
-1,550
Energy, and Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure

Reduce Toxic Substances Hydrology Program Operations -148 -
Subtotal: Environmental Health 21,445 21,404 287 0 -4,585 17,106
Total, Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health 94,511 94,331 1,221 1,477 -5,519 91,510
Natural Hazards
Earthquake Hazards Program 60,503 60,388 561 0 -9,561 51,388
Eliminate implementation of Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast -8,200
Reduce Support for Regional Earthquake Monitoring, Assessments and Research -800
Reduce Earthquake Hazards Operations -561
Volcano Hazards Program 26,121 26,071 343 0 -3,982 22,432
Suspend Implementation of NVEWS -1,500
Reduce Volcano Hazard Assessments -1,639
Suspend Maintenance of Monitoring Networks and Data Analysis at Yellowstone
-500
and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Reduce Volcano Hazards Operations -343
Landslide Hazards Program 3,538 3,531 53 0 -53 3,531
Reduce Landslide Hazards Operations -53
Global Seismographic Network 6,453 6,441 29 0 -1,484 4,986
Suspend implementation of GSN seismic station upgrades -1,455
Reduce Global Seismographic Network Operations -29
Geomagnetism Program 1,888 1,884 -1,884 0
Eliminate the Geomagetism Program -1,884
Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program 40,510 40,433 493 0 -5,152 35,774
Eliminate Marine Habitat/Resource Mapping and Ocean and Glacier Studies to
-1,600
Inform Resource Management
Eliminate Elevation Model Development and Regional Coastal Resource
-2,500
Assessments

Reduce Support for Regional Coastal Management, Restoration, and Risk Reduction -559
Reduce Coastal-Marine Hazards and Resources Program Operations -493 0
Total, Natural Hazards 139,013 138,748 1,479 0 -22,116 118,111

U.S. Geological Survey
D-2 2018 Budget Justification
Budget at a Glance

Budget at a Glance
(Dollars in Thousands)

2017 2018
2016 Fixed Internal Program
CR Budget
Actual Costs Transfer Changes
Annualized Request
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
Water Resources
Water Availability and Use Science Program 42,052 41,972 642 0 -12,201 30,413
Reduce National Research Program -4,325
Eliminate Water Use Data and Research -1,500
Eliminate Mississippi Alluvial Plan Aquifer Assessment Project -1,000
Eliminate U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Project -1,000
Eliminate Water-Use Unconventional Oil and Gas -250
Eliminate Focus Area Studies -1,600
Eliminate two Regional Groundwater Evaluations -789
Eliminate Groundwater Model Development, Maintenance and Sustainability -1,095
Reduce Water Availability and Use Science Program Operations -642
Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program 71,535 71,399 742 0 -3,982 68,159
Reduce National Research Program -1,540
Reduce National Groundwater Monitoring Network -1,700
Reduce Support to Groundwater and Streamflow Information Operations -742
National Water Quality Program 90,600 90,428 1,277 0 -17,235 74,470
Reduce National Research Program -6,011
Eliminate National Park Service Cooperative Water Partnership -1,743
Eliminate National Atmospheric Deposition Program -1,576
Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Lower Mississippi
-4,000
Stream Quality Assessment
Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Trends Assessments -2,628
Reduce National Water Quality Program Operations -1,277
Water Resources Research Act Program 6,500 6,488 0 0 -6,488 0
Eliminate Water Resources Research Act Program -6,488
Total, Water Resources 210,687 210,287 2,661 0 -39,906 173,042
Core Science Systems
National Geospatial Program 62,854 62,735 575 0 -11,375 51,935
Reduce Federal Geographic Data Committee Functions -2,700
Eliminate Geospatial Research and Reduce 3DEP Technical Support -5,100
Reduce 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Functions -3,000
Reduce National Geospatial Program Operations -575
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 24,397 24,351 244 0 -2,314 22,281
Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Functions -2,070
Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Operations -244
Science Synthesis, Analysis and Research Program 24,299 24,253 202 0 -5,702 18,753
Reduce USGS Library Functions -3,000
Reduce Biogeographic Science Functions -2,500
Reduce Science Synthesis, Analysis and Research Program Operations -202
Total, Core Science Systems 111,550 111,339 1,021 0 -19,391 92,969
Science Support
Administration and Management 81,981 81,825 944 0 -13,390 69,379
Reduce Administration and Management Services -12,446
Reduce Administration and Management Operations -944
Information Services 23,630 23,585 138 0 -3,734 19,989
Reduce Information Services Program -3,596
Reduce Information Services Operations -138
Total, Science Support 105,611 105,410 1,082 0 -17,124 89,368
Facilities
Rental Payments and Operations & Maintenance 93,141 92,964 11,963 0 0 104,927
Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement 7,280 7,266 0 0 0 7,266
Total, Facilities 100,421 100,230 11,963 0 0 112,193
Total, SIR 1,062,000 1,059,981 21,777 0 -159,590 922,168

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification D-3
Budget at a Glance

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
D-4 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes
Program Changes

Program Changes

2018
2016 Program Fixed 2018
Dollars in Thousands Enacted 2017 CR Changes Costs Request
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 -$29,547 $1,748 $132,128
Status and Trends Program $20,473 $20,434 -$3,806 $206 $16,834
Fisheries Program $20,886 $20,846 -$5,253 $253 $15,846
Wildlife Program $45,757 $45,670 -$10,707 $508 $35,471
Environments Program $38,415 $38,342 -$9,392 $392 $29,342
Invasive Species Program $17,330 $17,297 -$127 $127 $17,297
Cooperative Research Units Program $17,371 $17,338 -$262 $262 $17,338
Land Resources $139,975 $139,709 -$25,987 $602 $112,847

National Land Imaging Program $72,194 $72,057 $3,730 $340 $76,127

Land Change Science Program $10,492 $10,472 -$20,627 $122 $19,285
National and Regional Climate Adaptation
$26,435 $26,385 -$9,090 $140 $17,435
Science Centers
Climate Research and Development Program $21,495 $21,454 $0 $0 $0
Carbon Sequestration Program $9,359 $9,341 $0 $0 $0
Energy and Mineral Resources, and
$94,511 $94,331 -$5,519 $1,221 $91,510
Environmental Health
Energy and Mineral Resources $73,066 $72,927 -$934 $934 $74,404
Mineral Resources Program $48,371 $48,279 -$644 $644 $48,279
Energy Resources Program $24,695 $24,648 -$290 $290 $26,125
Environmental Health $21,445 $21,404 -$4,585 $287 $17,106
Contaminant Biology Program $10,197 $10,178 -$2,087 $139 $8,230
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program $11,248 $11,226 -$2,498 $148 $8,876
Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 -$22,116 $1,479 $118,111
Earthquake Hazards Program $60,503 $60,388 -$9,561 $561 $51,388
Volcano Hazards Program $26,121 $26,071 -$3,982 $343 $22,432
Landslide Hazards Program $3,538 $3,531 -$53 $53 $3,531
Global Seismographic Network $6,453 $6,441 -$1,484 $29 $4,986
Geomagnetism Program $1,888 $1,884 -$1,884 $0 $0
Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources
$40,510 $40,433 -$5,152 $493 $35,774
Program

U.S. Geological Survey
E-1 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

2018
2016 Program Fixed 2018
Dollars in Thousands Enacted 2017 CR Changes Costs Request
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 -$39,906 $2,661 $173,042
Water Availability and Use Science Program $42,052 $41,972 -$12,201 $642 $30,413
Groundwater and Streamflow Information
$71,535 $71,399 -$3,982 $742 $68,159
Program
National Water Quality Program $90,600 $90,428 -$17,235 $1,277 $74,470
Water Resources Research Act Program $6,500 $6,488 -$6,488 $0 $0
Core Science Systems $111,550 $111,339 -$19,391 $1,021 $92,969
National Geospatial Program $62,854 $62,735 -$11,375 $575 $51,935
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
$24,397 $24,351 -$2,314 $244 $22,281
Program
Science Synthesis, Analysis and Research
$24,299 $24,253 -$5,702 $202 $18,753
Program
Science Support $105,611 $105,410 -$17,124 $1,082 $89,368
Administration and Management $81,981 $81,825 -$13,390 $944 $69,379
Information Services $23,630 $23,585 -$3,734 $138 $19,989
Facilities $100,421 $100,230 $0 $11,963 $112,193
Rental Payments and Operations &
$93,141 $92,964 $0 $11,963 $104,927
Maintenance
Deferred Maintenance and Capital
$7,280 $7,266 $0 $0 $7,266
Improvement
USGS Total $1,062,000 $1,059,981 -$159,590 $21,777 $922,168

The 2018 President’s budget includes $922.2 million for the USGS, a program decrease of $159.6 million
over the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution and fixed costs of $21.8 million. The 2018 budget
request proposes various reductions in programs, but reflects a commitment to executing core USGS
mission responsibilities. The USGS focus continues to be providing impartial scientific data and leading-
edge research that supports policies and decisions that promote the health, safety, and prosperity of the
Nation. With this proposed requested budget, the USGS is reducing or eliminating programs.

More information on the program changes proposed in 2018 can be found in the Mission Area Chapters.

Ecosystems

Status and Trends Program (-$3,806,000/-24 FTE)

Eliminate Curation of Smithsonian Museum Collections (-$1,600,000/-11 FTE): This reduction
eliminates active curation of mammal and bird collections housed at the Smithsonian Institution and
the research associated with the collection. It would also eliminate USGS research on systematics of
North American species important to Interior for management of trust responsibilities and
development of modern museum methods, including three-dimensional imaging and DNA cataloging
to preserve specimens and facilitate rapid electronic sharing of species information.
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-2
Program Changes

Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research (-$2,000,000/-13 FTE): This reduces the science that
supports Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies’ management of species under their
authority, such as manatees, grizzly bears, walruses, polar bears, and migratory birds. This decreases
support to States for management of game, fish, furbearer species, and waterfowl that provide
recreational fishing and hunting opportunities.

Reduce Status and Trends Program Operations (-$206,000/0 FTE): This reduces the support of
field research to understand the current condition (status) and changes to that condition (trends) for
species under management responsibility of Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, and tribal
partners, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Fisheries Program (-$5,253,000/-34 FTE)

Eliminate Unconventional Oil and Gas Research (-$1,000,000/-7 FTE): This eliminates research
on ecological effects of unconventional oil and gas development in the Marcellus (Pennsylvania) and
Bakken (North Dakota) shales. This would decrease information for Federal and State resource
management agencies that guides natural gas development in ways that avoid or minimize impacts to
valued fish and wildlife habitat. The USGS would also discontinue development of genetic (specific
genes) and genomic (all of an organism's genes) indicators of environmental stress that can be used
by resource managers, public health agencies, and other responders to detect and respond to leaks
and reduce risks to fish, wildlife, and humans.

Reduce Contaminants Research (-$500,000/-4 FTE): This decreases the number of studies the
USGS will conduct on the sources and impacts of contaminants that may affect commercial and sport
fish, forage fish, and Federal species of management concern. This would also discontinue the
development of genetic and genomic tools to study impacts of endocrine disruptors on sport fish
populations such as small mouth bass.

Reduce Species-Specific Fisheries Research (-$3,500,000/-23 FTE): This reduces the science that
supports Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies’ management of species under their
authority, such as salmon, trout, sturgeon, shad, and migratory fish. This decreases support to states
for management of sports fisheries that provide recreational opportunities to anglers. This decrease
would also eliminate the Fisheries portion of the USGS Science Support Program, which funds
approximately 30 projects per year with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to address research
needs for fisheries management.

Reduce Fisheries Program Operations (-$253,000/0 FTE): This reduces the support to protect
and enhance the Nation’s fisheries and aquatic resources, with particular focus on Interior trust
responsibilities for protected species, migratory species, and species managed through tribal and other
international treaties, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
E-3 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

Wildlife Program (-$10,707,000 /-63 FTE)

Eliminate Whooping Crane Propagation Program (-$1,500,000/-5 FTE): This eliminates the
largest dedicated captive breeding effort for Endangered Species Act-listed cranes and eliminates
capacity within Interior for avian studies that require controlled studies with large, rare birds. The
program, while providing valuable contributions to whooping crane recovery, is no longer required to
meet species recovery goals.

Reduce Contaminants Research (-$500,000/-3 FTE): This decreases the number of studies the
USGS conducts on the sources and impacts of contaminants that may affect wildlife and other
terrestrial organisms. This would also discontinue endocrine disruptor research on migratory birds,
raptors, and amphibians.

Reduce Changing Arctic Ecosystems Research and Monitoring (-$1,600,000/-11 FTE): This
reduces science support for management and policy decisions, including those related to trust
responsibilities defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It reduces science to support
adaptation of management by the FWS, the National park Service (NPS), and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in northern Alaska, which affects Native communities. It also reduces the
availability of information related to transmission of avian influenza by migratory waterfowl passing
through Alaska that could infect other wildlife or poultry in the contiguous United States.

Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research (-$6,599,000/-44 FTE): This reduces the science that
supports Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies’ management of species under their
authority, including marine mammals, ungulates, migratory and songbirds, and amphibians. It
decreases support to states for management of game and waterfowl species that provide recreational
opportunities to hunters. This decrease would also eliminate the USGS Natural Resource
Preservation Program, which funds approximately 40 projects per year with the NPS to address
research needs for wildlife management in National Parks.

Reduce Wildlife Program Operations (-$508,000/0 FTE): This reduces science, technology, and
decision support to inform management of migratory birds, terrestrial and marine mammals,
amphibians and reptiles, and terrestrial plants, with particular focus on Interior trust responsibilities,
including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Environments Program (-$9,392,000 /-59 FTE)

Reduce Ecosystem Services Tool Development and Case Studies (-$1,000,000/-6 FTE): This
reduces the development of tools and case studies within the national framework for ecosystem
services, including delaying development of decision support systems for Interior bureaus and other
Federal agencies.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-4
Program Changes

Reduce Greater Everglades Research and Monitoring (-$5,000,000/-33 FTE): This discontinues
research and monitoring on effects of altered water flow on the ecology of the Greater Everglades.
This will limit the scientific information available to the NPS, FWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and the State of Florida to help inform investments for management and restoration.

Reduce Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring (-$3,000,000/-20 FTE): This decreases the
amount of scientific information used by six States and multiple Federal agencies to develop effective
management plans to reduce impacts of nutrients, sediment, and contaminants and improve habitat for
waterfowl, fish, and shellfish.

Reduce Environments Program Operations (-$392,000/0 FTE): This reduces the science to
understand natural and human influences on the ecosystems, lands, and waters under management
responsibility of Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, and tribal partners, including equipment,
services, and work with partners.

Invasive Species Program (-$127,000 /0 FTE)

Reduce Invasive Species Program Operations (-$127,000/0 FTE): This reduces the development
of tools, technologies, and decision support systems to detect, monitor, assess risk, and control
aquatic and terrestrial invasive species, including invasive wildlife diseases. In addition, equipment,
services and work with partners will be impacted.

Cooperative Research Units Program (-$262,000 /0 FTE)

Reduce Cooperative Research Units Program Operations (-$262,000/0 FTE): This reduces
ability to provide a cost-effective, national network of Federal, State, and university partnerships per
the Cooperative Research Units Act of 1960, with a legislated mission of research, education, and
technical assistance focused on fish, wildlife, ecology, and natural resources. In addition, equipment,
services and work with partners will be impacted.

Land Resources

National Land Imaging Program (+3,730,000/-52 FTE)

Landsat 9 Ground System Development (+$22,400,000/0 FTE): This increase provides the
additional funding required for the continued development of the Landsat 9 ground system and
supports the launch date goal of fiscal year 2021. The funding would cover the following USGS
activities: perform final design activities for the Mission Operations Center (MOC), Ground Network
Element (GNE), and Data Processing and Archive System (DPAS), hold critical design reviews for
each element, develop first releases, support NASA Spacecraft final design and initial development,
and conduct other activities necessary to ensure that all ground system requirements for the Landsat 9
mission are met in accordance with science mission design criteria.

U.S. Geological Survey
E-5 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

Eliminate Support for the National Civil Applications Center (-$4,847,000/-31 FTE): This
eliminates direct finding for the National Civil Applications Center and associated USGS research,
monitoring, and data collection activities using classified remote sensing imagery, as well as its
acquisition of imagery on behalf of other civil agencies. Both of the USGS secure compartmentalized
information facilities (Reston, VA and Denver, CO) will be closed.

Reduce Satellite Operations (-$8,996,000/-4 FTE): This reduction defers noncritical system
maintenance and hardware and software refresh within archive operations, and distribution of satellite
data other than Landsat. This reduction would also reduce support for requirements and capabilities
analysis for a land observation satellite that may follow Landsat 9.

Eliminate AmericaView State Grant program (-$1,215,000/0 FTE): This reduction eliminates
State grants that support the use of Landsat and other public domain remote sensing satellite data
through applied remote sensing research, K-12 and higher STEM education, workforce development
and technology transfer.

Reduce Science, Research and Investigations (-$3,272,000/-17 FTE): This reduction would
impact Landsat based research across the United States, ending essentially all USGS remote sensing
research being conducted in a variety of application areas, including water resource monitoring,
Chesapeake Bay water quality, Rocky Mountain landslides permafrost studies and mapping of U.S.
vegetation dynamics. The reduction would also delay the availability of the Land Change
Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) designed to provide the foundation for Federal
land change monitoring activities, allowing time series modeling power of the Landsat data record
going back to 1972. This reduction would slow the development of new information product
development and map products that would affect land managers work associated with water
resources, wildfire impacts, and our understanding of snow covered areas across the Country.

Reduce National Land Imaging Operations (-$340,000/0 FTE): This reduction diminishes the
NLI’s ability to execute its core activities including collecting, processing and providing the Nation
with digital land surface images. These images provide critical information needed for natural
resource and infrastructure monitoring and management, including forest health, wildfire recovery,
effects of drought on water supply, flood and other disaster recovery, agricultural production and
energy exploration and extraction, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Land Change Science Program (-20,627,000/ -88 FTE)

Eliminate Biologic Carbon Sequestration (-$5,237,000/-17 FTE): This eliminates projects to
develop methods for the inventory and tracking of carbon stored in ecosystems in the United States,
understand processes that control carbon sequestration and release in different ecosystems, design
strategies to enhance carbon stored in National Wildlife Refuge ecosystems, model carbon flux in
ecosystems, and create a standard methodology for the inventory of biological carbon sequestration
for the entire United States.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-6
Program Changes

Reduce Geologic Carbon Sequestration: (-$2,627,000/-13 FTE): This greatly curtails work to
monitor and evaluate induced seismicity associated with geologic CO 2 storage, evaluate the
geochemistry of produced groundwater and the potential for CO 2 leakage from the injection zones,
develop economic models for CO 2 storage in saline formations and associated with enhanced oil
recovery operations. In addition, the budget constrains collaborative work with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the State geological surveys under The Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, to
assess the availability of recoverable natural helium and associated CO 2 found in natural gas
reservoirs in the United States.

Eliminate Landscape Science Projects (–$1,498,000/-4 FTE): This eliminates projects to develop
methodologies for incorporating remote sensing products in landscape analyses, including land
change effects on water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, wildlife habitat in the Rocky Mountains, and
Pacific coastal fogs related to water availability for restoration. This reduction also eliminates
support for carbon biogeochemical cycling and analyses of forest management practices effects on
wildfires and biodiversity.

Eliminate Climate Research and Development Activities (-$11,143,000/-54 FTE): This eliminates
investigations of changes in land cover and interactions between land use, land change and regional
climate, research to identify processes related to carbon in soils, studies of arid vegetation response to
extended drought, investigations of hydrologic and biogeochemical change in Prairie Pothole
wetlands, and investigations of heat exchange beneath polar ice sheets. The reduction also eliminates
production of datasets of land management practices and the effects of climate fluctuations on
recreational uses of wetlands and other lands characterized by organic soils and paleoclimate datasets
that support modeling of wildlife and fisheries changes and the capacity to understand how and why
landscapes change over time.

Reduce Land Change Science Operations (-$122,000/0 FTE): This reduction diminishes the
LCSP’s ability to execute its core activities the development of information and tools identifying
possible solutions to the environmental, natural resource, and economic challenges required to
promote resilient communities and the sustainable use of the Nation’s resources, including
equipment, services, and work with partners.

National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (-9,090,000/ -24 FTE)

Eliminate Support for the National Phenology Network (-$250,000/-2 FTE): This eliminates
work on a 10-year retrospective report linking changes in climate to changes in timing of natural
events, such as bird nesting, blooming of flowers and hatching of fish eggs. The report would have
enhanced our understanding of the timing of events in plant and animal life cycles and how that
timing can affect people and ecosystems. This type of information provides insight on the best times
to hunt and fish, when to plant and harvest crops, and when to navigate waterways.

Eliminate Support for the GeoData Portal at the Office of Water Infrastructure (-$200,000/-2
FTE): The eliminates the program’s support for maintenance and new development and the addition
U.S. Geological Survey
E-7 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

of new datasets in the GeoData Portal, as well as data management of large climate and land use/land
cover model output. Terminating this support would make it harder to access and use data that feed
into planning and decision support tools used for climate adaptation strategies that help minimize the
economic and other risks of changes to watersheds, lands, and wildlife.

Realign the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (-$8,500,000/-20 FTE):
This reduction would eliminate four (of eight) regional CASCs, refocusing work on the highest
priority needs of Interior bureaus and States, supporting their development and adaptation of fish and
wildlife management plans, and natural resource adaptation science needs. The realigned CASCs will
continue cover science across the Nation; however, project capacity will need to adjust to the
realigned number of centers, potentially reducing activities by approximately 50 percent.

Reduce National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers Operations (NRCASCs)
(-$140,000/0 FTE): This reduction diminishes the NRCASCs ability to execute its core activities
including developing tools and information needed by fish and wildlife managers to develop and
execute management strategies to better adapt to changes in natural resources and to minimize
economic and other risks, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Energy and Mineral Resources

Mineral Resources Program (-$644,000/ 0 FTE)

Reduce Mineral Resources Program Operations (-$644,000/0 FTE): This reduces the MRP’s
ability to execute its core activities, such as conducting assessments of mineral resources across the
Nation and research on mineral potential, production, and consumption, including equipment,
services, and work with partners.

Energy Resources Program (-$290,000/ 0 FTE)

Reduce Energy Resources Program Operations (-$290,000/0 FTE): This reduces the ERP’s
ability to execute its core activities, including conducting energy resource assessments and research
on geologic energy resources such as: oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane, gas hydrates,
geothermal resources, uranium, oil shale, bitumen, and heavy oil, and includes equipment, services,
and work with partners.

Environmental Health

Contaminant Biology Program (-$2,087,000/-16 FTE)

Reduce Contaminant Research (-$1,948,000/-16 FTE): This reduction decreases scientific
information, such as sampling and analysis used to determine actual rather than perceived health risks
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-8
Program Changes

of legacy and emerging contaminants to humans, fish, and wildlife. This loss of information would
impact specific regions of the Nation (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Great Lakes) as
well as lands managed for recreational hunting and fishing, tribal subsistence, or other recreational
purposes. The reduction also decreases the transferability of this information across the Nation,
reducing the availability of comparative science to analyze similar circumstances of contaminant
occurrence in other areas across the United States and inform policies and practices.

Reduce Contaminant Biology Program Operations (-$139,000/0 FTE): This reduces the CBP’s
ability to execute its core activities, including conducting science regarding exposures to toxicological
and infectious disease agents in the environment that is needed to make decisions of critical
importance to the Nation, such as decisions related to resource development, disaster response, and
infrastructure, and including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (-$2,498,000/-15 FTE)

Eliminate Radioactive Waste Disposal Science in Support of Energy and Land and Water
Stewardship (-$700,000/-5 FTE): This eliminates a project that informs decision makers, land
managers, and landowners about the safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste on both private and
public lands in arid environments, by showing the likelihood of radioactivity moving offsite, how far
it may move, and how long it takes to get there.

Eliminate Municipal Wastewater Science to Support Land and Water Stewardship and
Infrastructure (-$100,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates a project providing science to help manage the
safe disposal of wastewater in municipalities across the Nation and in areas such as coasts and
National Parks. This non-regulatory science is used by States, municipalities, wastewater treatment
facilities, and other stakeholders to understand the health implications of pathogens, nutrients, and
chemicals in water bodies affected by municipal wastewaters and sewage. This will result in the loss
of information available to decision makers about wastewater infrastructure in areas where water is
reused, or where discharges and leakages occur from wastewater treatment facilities. Remaining
funds will be used to close existing research sites.

Eliminate Contaminant Science in Support of Water and Land Stewardship, Energy, and
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure (-$1,550,000/-9 FTE): This reduction would
mean a loss of specialized expertise needed by both ongoing and new USGS studies that provide non-
regulatory, non-advocacy science to understand and address health hazards posed by environmental
contaminants in tap waters, recreational waters, and fisheries (for example, harmful algal toxins, lead,
arsenic, perfluorinated compounds, and other contaminants of emerging concern). Such information
is utilized by policymakers at all levels, the private sector, and other stakeholders to understand actual
versus perceived risks to health posed by environmental contaminants, and to develop appropriate,
cost-effective, and technologically feasible policies and strategies to reduce exposures to
environmental contaminants.

U.S. Geological Survey
E-9 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

Reduce Toxic Substances Hydrology Program Operations (-$148,000/0 FTE): This reduces the
TSHP’s ability to execute its core activities, including conducting science regarding exposures to
toxicological and infectious disease agents in the environment that is needed to make decisions of
critical importance to the Nation, such as decisions related to resource development, disaster
response, and infrastructure, and including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Natural Hazards

Earthquake Hazards Program (-9,561,000 /-12 FTE)

Eliminate Implementation of Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast
(-$8,200,000/-10 FTE): This elimination would end USGS efforts to implement the ShakeAlert
earthquake early warning system, suspending internal efforts and eliminating external funding to
partners (California Institute of Technology, Central Washington University, University of California
at Berkeley, University of Nevada at Reno, University of Oregon, and the University of
Washington).

Reduce Support for Regional Earthquake Monitoring, Assessments and Research (-$800,000/-2
FTE): This reduces support for regional earthquake monitoring, hazard assessment, and research in
areas of moderate seismic risk, specifically Alaska and the Central and Eastern United States. This
would also reduce grants supporting targeted research by academic, State, and private sector partners,
which may slow the rate of updates to seismic provisions in building codes and provide less science
to support risk mitigation actions. The USGS would also suspend its annual forecast of hazard related
to both natural and induced seismicity.

Reduce Earthquake Hazards Operations (-$561,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish the
EHP’s ability to execute its core activities including monitoring and reporting on earthquakes,
assessing earthquake hazards, as well as delivery of earthquake products to emergency responders,
including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Volcano Hazards Program (-3,982,000 /-7 FTE)

Suspend Implementation of NVEWS (-$1,500,000/-2 FTE): This suspends implementation of the
National Volcano Early Warning System, including installations to close monitoring gaps on Very-
High-Threat volcanoes in the contiguous United States and upgrade analog monitoring stations in
Alaska to comply with National Telecommunications and Information Administration spectrum
allocation restrictions, and developing a next generation lahar detection system for Mt. Rainier,
Washington.

Reduce Volcano Hazard Assessments (-$1,639,000/-3 FTE): This reduces the pace of hazard
assessments at High- and Very-High-Threat volcanoes. The reduction would also reduce efforts to
develop volcano hazard assessments used to inform monitoring and decisions on managing risks from

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-10
Program Changes

eruptions, narrowing the focus of assessments to understanding volcanic systems and technologies for
future monitoring and widespread instrument deployment.

Suspend Maintenance of Monitoring Networks and Data Analysis at Yellowstone and
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (-$500,000/-2 FTE): This suspends
maintenance of USGS monitoring networks which will diminish monitoring of the Yellowstone
volcanic region, including real-time temperature monitoring of stream and hydrothermal pools,
resulting in significantly reduced awareness of changes within a large caldera system where ground
deformation and hydrothermal explosions are commonplace. This reduction would also suspend
maintenance of monitoring networks on three active volcanoes in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.

Reduce Volcano Hazards Operations (-$343,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish the
VHP’s ability to execute its core activities to provide forecasts and warnings of hazardous volcanic
activity at volcanoes in the United States with the current monitoring networks; to provide forecasts
and warnings and situational awareness of hazardous volcanic activity; and to produce updated
volcanic hazard assessments, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Landslide Hazards Program ($-53,000/0 FTE)

Reduce Landslide Hazards Operations (-$53,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish the
LHP’s ability to execute its core activities for landslide loss reduction including: providing debris-
flow hazard assessments and early warning for areas recently burned by wildfire; supporting
expansion of landslide alerts to selected non-burned areas; maintaining capability to respond to major
landslide crises; and continuing to develop and improve methods for landslide hazard assessment and
situational awareness, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Global Seismographic Network (-$1,484,000/-2 FTE)

Suspend implementation of GSN seismic station upgrades (-$1,455,000/-2 FTE): This reduction
would suspend the deployment of 15 to 20 sensors procured by the Department of Energy, National
Nuclear Security Administration to improve the GSN infrastructure by replacing aged and degraded
sensors.

Reduce Global Seismographic Network Operations (-$29,000/0 FTE): This reduction would
diminish the GSN’s ability to execute its core activities including operating the existing network to
provide seismic data needed for earthquake alerts and situational awareness products, tsunami
warnings, national security, hazard assessments and research, including equipment, services, and
work with partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
E-11 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

Geomagnetism Program (-$1,884,000/-15 FTE)

Eliminate the Geomagnetism Program (-$1,884,000/-15 FTE): This eliminates the Geomagnetism
Program, an element of the U.S. National Space Weather Program. This will reduce the accuracy of
NOAA and U.S. Air Force forecasting of the magnitude and impact of geomagnetic storms. In
addition to eliminating the data provided to partner Federal agencies, the elimination of the program
will also reduce the availability of geomagnetic information to the oil drilling services industry,
geophysical surveying industry, several international agencies, and electrical transmission utilities.

Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program (-$5,152,000/-16 FTE)

Eliminate Marine Habitat/Resource Mapping and Ocean and Glacier Studies to Inform
Resource Management (-$1,600,000/-6 FTE): This reduction would eliminate monitoring,
research, and model development to forecast the impacts on coastal waters, ecosystems and fisheries
due to ocean acidification and changing fluxes of nutrients, freshwater, and sediment from retreating
glaciers. This will reduce the information and tools available to resource managers to anticipate and
respond to stresses on commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and
Gulf of Alaska. Additionally, it reduces application of USGS mapping expertise to characterize
marine habitats and sand resources required for beach nourishment in areas where operational costs
are not provided by external partners.

Eliminate Elevation Model Development and Regional Coastal Resource Assessments
(-$2,500,000/-7 FTE): This reduces the development of “user ready” regional onshore/offshore
elevation models for regional restoration of San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Northwest, the Northern
Gulf of Mexico and Florida. These models are also used for State and Federal coastal management
and planning. It also reduces development and delivery of large-scale assessments of coral reef and
associated community vulnerability including impacts of changing reef structure on tourism,
recreational and commercial fisheries, and hazard exposure of military and other infrastructure in
Florida, Hawaii, and the Pacific and Caribbean territories.

Reduce Support for Regional Coastal Management, Restoration, and Risk Reduction
(-$559,000/-3 FTE): This would result in a reduction of activities in the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and
Atlantic regions resulting in fewer and delayed products to support planning and implementation of
regional coastal management, restoration, and risk reduction strategies by Interior, other Federal and
State agencies. For example, activities in the Fire Island National Seashore, New York, to inform
State and Federal management and planning to reduce coastal hazards and manage protected
resources and studies supporting the Puget Sound Partnership goals for regional restoration will be
concluded. Regional studies supporting restoration in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and San
Francisco Bay will be reduced, decreasing the scope and extending the timeline for delivery of
products to inform regional restoration efforts locally and in similar coastal settings nationwide.

Reduce Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Operations (-$493,000/0 FTE): This reduction
would diminish the CMHRP’s ability to execute its core activities, including addressing coastal and
marine issues of national consequence that have the greatest potential to impact public safety as well
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-12
Program Changes

as coastal and marine policy, planning, and management, including equipment, services, and work
with partners.

Water Resources

Water Availability and Use Science Program (WAUSP) (-$12,201,000/-60 FTE)

Reduce National Research Program (-$4,325,000/-28 FTE): This reduces research in the San
Francisco Bay Delta, Klamath Lake, the Florida Everglades, and Chesapeake Bay to improve
operational forecasting of water availability and ecological health. In addition, geomorphic and
sediment research will be eliminated. This also reduces research at the 32 USGS Water Science
Centers across the United States that address existing and emerging water availability and use issues.
This reduces localized, regional, and national studies examining how changes in water budget
components (including precipitation, evapotranspiration, streamflow, and groundwater) impact water
availability. The ability to extrapolate current conditions, both spatially and temporally, and forecast
future changes using surface and groundwater models would be reduced, limiting information for
resource managers.

Eliminate Water Use Data and Research (-$1,500,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates cooperative
agreements with States to improve the availability, quality, compatibility, and delivery of water-use
data that is collected or estimated by States in order to manage long-term water supplies.

Eliminate Mississippi Alluvial Plan Aquifer Assessment Project (-$1,000,000/-7 FTE): This
would eliminate the Mississippi Alluvial Plan Aquifer Assessment, including the collection of
detailed information about the interaction of groundwater and streamflow that would support
sustainable agriculture in Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee.

Eliminate U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Project (-$1,000,000/-4 FTE): This
eliminates the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment, a collaboration with the USGS, the
States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas through their Water Resources Research Institutes and the
International Boundary and Water Commission, stakeholders, and Mexican counterparts to provide
new information and a scientific foundation for State and local officials to address water-resource
challenges along the U.S. – Mexico border.

Eliminate Water-Use Unconventional Oil and Gas (-$250,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates a pilot
study in the Williston Basin (Western Dakotas and eastern Montana) to provide tools and information
to determine the quantities of water necessary to develop and recover unconventional oil and gas
resources.

Eliminate Focus Area Studies (-$1,600,000/-8 FTE): This eliminates collaborative studies in the
Upper Rio Grande, the Red River, and the Coastal Carolina Basins with State and local partners to
provide data, models and decision-support tools, such as water availability estimates, snow melt
information, and groundwater and surface water models to improve water resource management.

U.S. Geological Survey
E-13 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

Eliminate Two Regional Groundwater Evaluations (-$789,000/-4 FTE): This eliminates two of
14 studies of regional groundwater, the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System (CLAS), which extends
from Texas to the Panhandle of Florida, and the California Coastal Basin Aquifers. The CLAS study
focuses on land subsidence issues in Houston and developing tools to assist in managing the entire
groundwater system from Texas to northern Florida. The California Coastal Basins study applies new
modeling techniques to enable local agencies to identify groundwater issues, such as chronic lowering
of groundwater levels, reduction of storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, land
subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface waters.

Eliminate Groundwater Model Development, Maintenance and Sustainability (-$1,095,000/-7
FTE): This eliminates maintenance and improvements on existing groundwater software tools,
MODFLOW and GSFLOW. MODFLOW is the de facto international standard code for aquifer
simulation and GSFLOW is a linked surface water and groundwater modeling code. Both tools
provide valuable information used in resource management.

Reduce Water Availability and Use Science Program Operations (-$642,000/0 FTE): This
reduction would diminish the ability to execute its core activities including assessing and quantifying
the availability of groundwater resources, providing a more accurate assessment of the status and
trends of the water resources of the United States, as well as developing the basis for an improved
ability to forecast the availability of water for future economic, energy production, and environmental
uses. In addition, equipment, services and work with partners will be impacted.

Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program (GSWIP) (-$3,982,000/-10 FTE)

Reduce National Research Program (NRP) (-$1,540,000/-10 FTE): This reduces research on
water quality and the development of effective remediation strategies, which may extend hazardous
waste cleanup in many States by several years. It will also end the collection and provision of water-
quality data and trend analysis on nutrients and sediments to Federal and State partners in the Gulf of
Mexico and Chesapeake Bay, as well as affect local and State efforts to lower nutrient levels affecting
drinking water intakes and local rivers and lakes.

Reduce National Groundwater Monitoring Network (NGWMN) (-$1,700,000/0 FTE): This
reduces cooperative agreements with States that support national and local groundwater databases
that are shared through the NGWMN Data Portal. In addition, it will reduce support for a network of
groundwater wells that monitor the effects of droughts and other factors on groundwater levels. The
network consists of about 130 groundwater wells in 20 states. This may increase difficulties for
States, regional authorities, and local agencies coordinating management activities related to drought,
water resource planning and permitting on shared groundwater resources. It also reduces well
maintenance and replacement, creating information gaps.

Reduce Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program Operations (- $742,000/0 FTE):
This reduction would diminish the ability to execute its core activities including strengthening the
National streamgage and groundwater monitoring networks, developing and implementing hazard
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-14
Program Changes

data collection, information presentation and new tools to minimize loss of life and property,
research, development, as well as application of cost-effective monitoring, record maintenance, and
data delivery. In addition, equipment, services and work with partners will be impacted.

National Water Quality Program (NWQP) (-$17,235,000/-108 FTE)

Reduce National Research Program (NRP) (-$6,011,000/-40 FTE): This would suspend studies in
Arizona, California, Colorado, and Minnesota that focus on how contaminants move through the
environment, their degradation or, if they persist, whether or not they pose a risk to human or aquatic
ecosystem health. It would suspend studies that examine how nutrients, carbon and sediment are
transported and delivered to small streams in the agricultural Midwest and to large estuaries such as
the Chesapeake Bay or in the Gulf of Mexico. Studies examining the post-wildfire impacts on water
quality and ecosystems in the Western United States and the effects of climate variability on the
condition of permafrost in Alaska would also be suspended. The ability to forecast which legacy or
emerging contaminants pose a threat to drinking water supplies in Arizona and Colorado or the health
of aquatic ecosystems in California, the upper Midwest, and the Gulf of Mexico would be sharply
curtailed. The ability to extrapolate current conditions and forecast future changes in water quality in
important watersheds, such as the Mississippi River Basin or critical aquifers like the Central Valley
of California, would be delayed 5-10 years, suspending the production of critical information water
resource managers use to evaluate water resources for agricultural irrigation and safe drinking water
supplies across the United States.

Eliminate National Park Service Cooperative Water Partnership (NPS-CWP) (-$1,743,000/-12
FTE): This funding decrease would eliminate the NWQP's NPS-CWP, which provides water-quality
science support to the National Park Service. For over 20 years, the NPS-CWP has supported data
collection and interpretative studies of priority water-quality issues in the Nation's national parks
including the occurrence of emerging contaminants, harmful algal blooms, endocrine disrupting
compounds, harmful algal blooms, and mercury and other metals in park waters. Collectively or
individually, these sources of water-quality impairment threaten human and aquatic ecosystem health
and have the potential to decrease the number of visitors and reduce revenue in affected parks.
Twenty-one existing projects will be stopped that include studies examining threats to water quality
in Crater Lake National Park (OR), Golden Gate National Recreational Area and Yosemite National
Park (CA), Chattahoochee National Recreational Area (GA), Voyagers National Park (MN), Fire
Island National Seashore (NY), Saguaro National Park (AZ), Lake Mead (AZ, NV) Delaware River
Gap (NJ, PA), Jamestown Island Colonial National Historic Park (VA), and New River Gorge (WV).
Without these projects, and any future planned projects, the NPS will have less information with
which to make decisions about water quality, which would impact the public water supply at the
parks and potentially affect the health of park visitors and wildlife.

Eliminate National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) (-$1,576,000/-10 FTE): This
decrease will eliminate USGS participation in the NADP a collaborative effort that involves about
250 Federal, State, tribal, academic, and local organizations who operate five national monitoring
networks that measure atmospheric inputs of nutrients, acidic compounds, mercury, ammonia, and
other chemicals to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The decrease would eliminate monitoring at 82
U.S. Geological Survey
E-15 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

sites in 38 States and Puerto Rico, which is about 30 percent of the program’s network. NADP data,
which go back 40 years at some sites, are used to produce the Environmental Protection Agency and
the International Joint Commission air quality reports, to establish mercury fish consumption
advisories and provide surveillance data for biological, chemical, or radiological agents derived from
natural or manmade disasters, such as radioactive fallout from the 2011 Fukushima reactor meltdown.

Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Lower Mississippi Stream Quality
Assessment (-$4,000,000/-28 FTE): This eliminates the planned NAWQA Project stream-quality
assessment study of the Lower Mississippi River Basin (LMRB). The collaborative study would have
characterized sources of water-quality and aquatic ecosystem impairment—contaminants, nutrients,
sediment, and streamflow— and ecological conditions in streams in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky to determine the relative effects of these stressors on the health of
aquatic communities and to identify which human and natural factors are most critical in controlling
stream quality.

Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Trends Assessments
(-$2,628,000/-18 FTE): This decrease will delay implementation of planned studies that will
determine and explain which natural and human factors are most important in influencing long-term
trends in surface water and groundwater quality. The decrease also eliminates planned sampling of
groundwater-quality networks in seven States (AZ, IL, MN, NJ, SC, TX, and WA), and eliminates
water-quality sampling at four percent of the long-term monitoring sites operated as part of the USGS
National Water Quality Network for Streams and Rivers. This decrease would also delay or suspend a
study of long-term water quality trends in the Nation's rivers and streams. The decrease will delay
data analysis and reporting by four years and delay work at the regional and national scale to assess
the effectiveness of investments in wastewater treatment plant upgrades and best management
practices, particularly in agricultural areas.

Reduce National Water Quality Program Operations (-$1,277,000/0 FTE): This decrease would
reduce NAWQA Project activities assessing the current and future quality of the Nation’s freshwater
resources, evaluating which human and natural factors are driving observed geographic patterns and
trends, and developing tools and models water resource managers and drinking-water suppliers can
use to forecast short and long-term changes to water quality, such as forecasting harmful algal blooms
or decadal-scale changes in groundwater quality. In addition, maintenance of monitoring equipment,
data services and work with partners will be impacted.

Water Resources Research Act (WRRA) (-$6,488,000/-1 FTE)

Eliminate Water Resources Research Act Program (-$6,488,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates a grant
and cooperative agreement program for land grant universities. This would end USGS involvement
in coordination and administrative support for all grants to Water Resource Research Institutes.
Applied research projects that address a wide variety of water resource topics and problems at the
State level would no longer receive funding through this expired program.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-16
Program Changes

Core Science Systems

National Geospatial Program (-11,375,000/-26 FTE)

Reduce Federal Geographic Data Committee Functions (-$2,700,000/-7 FTE): This eliminates
Interior sponsorship of several Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) committees and
projects, but retains core FGDC committee support, stakeholder engagement, and strategic planning
support. Reductions and eliminations include activities supporting the Federal Geospatial Platform;
the National Geospatial Advisory Committee; collaborating with Federal and non-Federal partners on
geospatial standards; and supporting the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

Eliminate Geospatial Research and Reduce 3DEP Technical Support (-$5,100,000/-19 FTE):
This reduces support for technical operations and delivery functions within the 3D Elevation Program
(3DEP), National Hydrography and Watershed Boundary Datasets, and US Topo Programs, including
Alaska mapping. The reduction would eliminate the Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information
Science and its associated research grants.

Reduce 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Functions (-$3,000,000/0 FTE): This defers completion of
3DEP national coverage by five years, delaying until 2033 the complete acquisition of light detection
and ranging (lidar) data to enhance landscape-scale, three-dimensional maps for the Nation. The
reduction results in a significant loss of leveraged partner funds.

Reduce National Geospatial Program Operations (-$575,000/0 FTE): This reduction would
diminish the National Geospatial Program's ability to execute its core activities including delaying
major mapping efforts to produce and make available highly-accurate topographic, hydrographic, and
geologic data and maps for the American public through the National Map and Federal Geospatial
Platform. This reduces equipment, services, and work with Federal, State, and industry partners.

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (-2,314,000/-5 FTE)

Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Functions (-2,070,000/-5 FTE): This
reduces FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP funds proportionately based on the algorithm defined
by the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 and subsequent reauthorizations. This would
eliminate earthquake seismic hazard assessments in central Virginia impacting the USGS's ability to
construct seismic hazard maps based upon the latest geologic maps for the central Virginia area. The
USGS would reduce the number of geologic maps produced for the Nation; the loss of matching (1:1
match) partner funds from the State Geological Surveys through the STATEMAP grants program
doubles this loss. This reduction would also affect EDMAP grants to colleges and universities.

Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Operations (-$244,000/0 FTE): This
reduction would diminish the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program's ability to execute
its core activities including significantly delaying the number of geologic maps produced to current
standards for the Nation. This reduces equipment, services, and work with Federal, State, and
university partners.
U.S. Geological Survey
E-17 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program (-5,702,000/-27 FTE)

Reduce USGS Library Functions (-$3,000,000/-20 FTE): This eliminates public access to USGS
Library locations. The USGS would place all collections into a dark archive; reduce online journal
subscriptions by at least fifty percent; and close libraries in three, or possibly all four locations
(Menlo Park, CA; Flagstaff, AZ; Lakewood, CO; and Reston, VA).

Reduce Biogeographic Science Functions (-$2,500,000/-7 FTE): This reduction would eliminate all
national species occurrence data (e.g., species distributions) and systems, which impacts the USGS's
ability to produce and maintain these data. The USGS would also eliminate contracts and partnership
agreements with USGS Science Centers, universities, and other Federal agencies for assembling and
integrating data on species distribution across the Nation. This would result in other Federal
agencies, State, and local governments spending additional funding to individually assemble and
integrate non-standard species data. This reduction also eliminates the biodiversity hub of
EcoINFORMA (Ecoinformatics-based Open Resources and Machine Accessibility).

Reduce Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program Operations (-$202,000/0 FTE):
This reduction would diminish the SSAR Program's ability to execute its core activities including the
production and maintenance of species occurrence data; decreasing bibliographic research services;
and limiting access to online journals—services essential to all of the USGS's mission areas and
Interior science. This reduction would also reduce the ability to maintain and invest in information
technologies that are essential to the core mission work of the program.

Science Support
Administration and Management (-$13,390,000/-140 FTE)

Reduce Administration and Management Services (-$12,446,000/-140 FTE): A reduction to the
A&M workforce would further delay hiring, which impacts mission areas research and prohibits us
from meeting the OPM mandated 80-day hiring process. These reductions also limit strategic
sourcing initiatives and decrease the timeliness of awards by our acquisition and contract staff,
directly impacting the science, along with impacting States and universities that receive grants. In
addition, these decreases will also reduce publications of scientific reports that are widely used by
decision makers, natural resource planners, and Congress; eliminate youth outreach activities
contributing directly to STEM capabilities for the Nation; impact cooperative work with international
counterparts; and reduce technology transfers and patent programs resources, impacting our scientific
inventions.

Reduce Administration and Management Operations (-$944,000/0 FTE): This reduction would
diminish A&M’s ability to execute its core activities including hiring, contracting, accounting
functions, and other activities that support the science mission of the bureau. This proposed reduction
will reduce staff training and travel, procurement of needed equipment and services, and the ability to
maintain and invest in information technology that are essential to the core mission work of the
program.
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-18
Program Changes

Information Services (-$3,734,000/-5 FTE)

Reduce Information Services Program (-$3,596,000/-5 FTE): The 2018 budget request would
limit resources to fund cybersecurity efforts in the cloud and increases response times to requests for
cybersecurity reporting. It would also reduce collaborative and automation activities that support the
science mission and eliminate this program’s support for the Open Data Initiative, Data.gov and Open
Science Initiatives, and reduce resources supporting the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act
(FITARA) compliance. It would reduce investment in the information infrastructure, increasing risk
of system failures and loss of science data.

Reduce Information Services Operations (-$138,000/0 FTE): This reduction would limit
resources to execute core activities, including cybersecurity, collaborative activities and automation
activities that support the science mission of the bureau. This proposed reduction will reduce staff
training and travel, procurement of needed equipment and services, and the ability to maintain and
invest in information technology.

U.S. Geological Survey
E-19 2018 Budget Justification
Program Changes

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification E-20
Ecosystems
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
USGS science happens in partnership with people
on the land, expanding our capacity to protect fish
and wildlife and improve our quality of life.

Cheatgrass and fire in the Great Basin

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180
Status and Trends
Program $20,473 $20,434 $206 $0 -$3,806 $16,834 -$3,600
FTE 109 109 0 0 -24 85 -24
Fisheries Program $20,886 $20,846 $253 $0 -$5,253 $15,846 -$5,000
FTE 134 134 0 0 -34 100 -34
Wildlife Program $45,757 $45,670 $508 $0 -$10,707 $35,471 -$10,199
FTE 269 269 0 0 -63 206 -63
Environments Program $38,415 $38,342 $392 $0 -$9,392 $29,342 -$9,000
FTE 208 208 0 0 -59 149 -59
Invasive Species
Program $17,330 $17,297 $127 $0 -$127 $17,297 $0
FTE 67 67 0 0 0 67 0
Cooperative Research
Units Program $17,371 $17,338 $262 $0 -$262 $17,338 $0
FTE 139 139 0 0 0 139 0

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-1
Ecosystems

Summary of Program Changes

Fixed
Request Component ($000's) FTE Costs Page
Status and Trends Program -3,806 -24 +206 F--7
Eliminate Curation of Smithsonian Museum Collections -1,600 -11 F--8
Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research -2,000 -13 F--8
Reduce Status and Trends Program Operations -206 0 F--9
Fisheries Program -5,253 -34 +253 F--11
Eliminate Unconventional Oil and Gas Research -1,000 -7 F--12
Reduce Contaminants Research -500 -4 F--12
Reduce Species-Specific Fisheries Research -3,500 -23 F--12
Reduce Wildlife Program Operations -253 0 F--12
Wildlife Program -10,707 -63 +508 F--15
Eliminate Whooping Crane Propagation Program -1,500 -5 F--16
Reduce Contaminants Research -500 -3 F--16
Reduce Changing Arctic Ecosystems Research and Monitoring -1,600 -11 F--16
Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research -6,599 -44 F--16
Reduce Wildlife Operations -508 0 F--17
Environments Program -9,392 -59 +392 F--19
Reduce Ecosystem Services Tool Development and Case Studies -1,000 -6 F--20
Reduce Greater Everglades Research and Monitoring -5,000 -33 F--20
Reduce Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring -3,000 -20 F--20
Reduce Environments Program Operations -392 0 F--20
Invasive Species Program -127 0 +127 F--23
Reduce Invasive Species Program Operations -127 0 F--24
Cooperative Research Units Program -262 0 +262 F--25
Reduce Cooperative Research Units Program Operations -262 0 F--26
Total Program Change -29,547 -180 +1,748

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Ecosystems Mission Area is $132,128,000 and 746 FTE, and includes a
program change of -$29,547,000 and -180 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR)
level. This includes a fixed costs change of $1,748,000.

Overview

Through the Ecosystems Mission Area, the USGS provides scientific information and decision support to
meet Interior’s shared responsibility for land and species management, to fulfill treaty obligations with
Tribes and foreign governments, to develop energy and mineral resources on Interior lands and the outer
Continental Shelf, and to supply water for irrigation and other human needs. USGS science protects and

U.S. Geological Survey
F-2 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

conserves the Nation’s fish and wildlife heritage by bridging the gap between science and management
for at-risk species and species of management concern. The USGS works with many partners to sustain
the hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related recreation needs of the public by providing data, science
research and monitoring that informs and supports the hunting and recreational fishing sectors that
contribute $144 billion in expenditures and 480,000 American jobs (2017 National Recreation Economy
Report, Outdoor Industry Association). The USGS also identifies conservation measures designed to
preclude the need for listing species as endangered or threatened; help listed species recover; prevent or
control invasive species and wildlife disease outbreaks; and apply decision science so that management
and policy actions are transparent and durable.

To accomplish the USGS's science mission, the Ecosystems Mission Area (https://go.usa.gov/xXHvf) is
organized into six subactivities:
• Status and Trends (https://go.usa.gov/xXHvA)
• Fisheries Program (https://go.usa.gov/xXHv6)
• Wildlife Program (https://go.usa.gov/xXHvM)
• Environments Program (https://go.usa.gov/xXHvz)
• Invasive Species (https://go.usa.gov/xXHvh)
• Cooperative Research Units (https://go.usa.gov/xXHwc)

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-3
Ecosystems

Map of Ecosystem Science Centers, Field Stations and Laboratories (Note: Map excludes the 40 Cooperative Research Units
(CRU) – refer to the CRU Subactivity Section for those locations. (USGS created)
Ecosystems Mission Area funded work is conducted within 16 Science Centers, 60 Field Stations, and 40 Cooperative Research
Units dispersed across the United States. This distributed workforce enables our scientists to work directly with resource
managers on the species and lands for which they are making critical management decisions. Partnerships with other Federal,
State, local, and tribal entities leverage millions of dollars in additional financial and in-kind support to greatly increase the
effectiveness and relevancy of the Ecosystems research program.

Core priorities for the Ecosystems Mission Area include:

• Fish and Wildlife Heritage: Science that facilitates the conservation and enhancement
of rare and declining species, migratory species, and sustainable harvest of game,
waterfowl, fish, and furbearing animals.
• Land and Water Stewardship: Decision support tools and advanced monitoring
systems to help society manage the challenges related to balancing competing demands
for land, water, and natural resources.
• Invasive Species and Wildlife Disease (Biothreats): Science to improve methods and
technologies for early detection, risk assessment, and control of emergent or new
incursions of invasive species or wildlife disease.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-4 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Program Performance

Ecosystems sciences are essential for making cost-effective resource management decisions for the
Nation’s lands and waterways, and provide decision makers with regional and nationwide monitoring of
key environmental indicators for terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats, and information on the
abundance and distribution of fish and wildlife, invasive species, wildlife disease, and other natural
resources. Data holdings and observation networks maintained by the Ecosystems Mission Area are vital
to understand the status, trends, and health of our Nation’s natural resources. Many of these databases
include decades-long records of observations, collected under strict standards of quality assurance and
quality control.

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

The Ecosystems programs will conduct work in the following priority areas:

Fish and Wildlife Heritage:
• Continue to provide the science needed to maintain sustainable harvests of fish and wildlife.
• Work collaboratively with Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, local and tribal agencies to
conserve species and habitats before Federal protection is needed by assessing fish and wildlife
populations, life histories, and factors affecting at-risk and threatened and endangered species.
• Facilitate enhanced recreational, commercial, and subsistence fisheries in large river systems by
designing more effective fish passage structures and evaluating the outcomes of dam removal.

Land and Water Stewardship:
• Reduce fire risk to communities by developing new methods to control fuel loads, understand
factors influencing fire movement, identifying factors causing loss of homes and habitat, and
developing strategies to protect communities and fish and wildlife species.
• Work collaboratively with Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, local and tribal agencies to
develop methods and tools to evaluate potential impacts of solar power plants on wildlife and
statistical tools that enable resource managers to make decisions to protect wildlife around wind
energy farms.
• Inform long-term conservation and management strategies by providing science on sage steppe
biome, interactions of rangeland fire and drought management, and wildlife and invasive species
interactions under stressed conditions.
• Protect, manage, and rebuild coastal ecosystems by developing tools, data, and technologies that
protect lives and infrastructure during coastal storms; support recreational and commercial
fisheries, create jobs, and support local communities.
• Develop automated methods and tools supporting satellite-based drought monitoring that will
help managers identify the onset and severity of drought events in near real-time to effectively
allocate scarce water resources.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-5
Ecosystems

Invasive Species and Wildlife Disease (Biothreats):
• Expand the national Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) database to add more species profiles
and promote online reporting of non-native aquatic species for watch lists, allocation of early
detection and response efforts, and conduct risk assessments.
• Improve detection and control methods for economically and ecologically costly invasives
including Asian carp, sea lamprey, brown treesnakes, and Burmese pythons.
• Enhance wildlife disease risk assessment, surveillance, and management tools including the
national wildlife disease online reporting tool (WHISPers), avian influenza risk assessment Web
tool, and chronic wasting disease online surveillance design tool for State agencies.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-6 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
Status and Trends Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180
Status and Trends
Program $20,473 $20,434 $206 $0 -$3,806 $16,834 -$3,600
FTE 109 109 0 0 -24 85 -24

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Status and Trends Program is $16,834,000 and 85 FTE, and includes a
program change of -$3,806,000 and -24 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR)
level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $206,000.

Overview

Living resources and their habitats are undergoing constant change. The USGS's Status and Trends
Program provides science and technology to understand the current condition (status) and changes to that
condition (trends) for species under management responsibility of Interior bureaus and other Federal,
State, and tribal partners. To protect, conserve, and if necessary, enhance species under their jurisdiction,
resource managers rely on timely, accurate information on species status and trends at geographic and
historical scales to support management actions. USGS scientists develop monitoring protocols to assess
population size and range, identify patterns of change of those populations using historic and current data,
study links between populations of different species and relationships with other environmental changes,
and then develop predictive models to evaluate outcomes of potential management actions using
innovative sampling designs and statistical methods. Program activities are designed to better understand
the effectiveness of management practices to improve conditions for key species, so as to efficiently
target limited time and resources to accomplish the desired management outcome.

The 2018 Budget Request supports:
• Population assessments of Great Lakes forage fish used by States, Tribes, and provinces to
collectively manage a $6 billion commercial and recreational fishing industry (USGS Great Lakes
Deepwater Program).

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-7
Ecosystems

• Population assessments of migratory birds used by National Flyway Councils to manage
waterfowl hunting in the United States in cooperation with Canada and Mexico (USGS Bird
Banding Laboratory).
• National level modeling of plant and animal life-cycle events to predict and manage invasive
species, insect pests, wildlife disease, aeroallergens, recreational opportunities, and crop and
range production using citizen science (National Phenology Network).

Spring Indices: Indicators of
Phenological Activity
The Spring Leaf Index is a
synthetic measure of early season
events in plants, based on recent
temperature conditions.
This USGS model allows the
public to track the progression of
spring onset across the country.

• Development of information and tools used by our partners to assess, conserve, and enhance fish
and wildlife habitat while facilitating energy development across the western frontier in
cooperation with local partners (Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative).
• Population assessments of North American bats to understand impacts of an invasive fungal
disease, bat white nose syndrome, on control of insects that threaten agricultural production and
human health (North American Bat Monitoring Program [NABat]).

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Curation of Smithsonian Museum Collections (-$1,600,000/-11 FTE): This reduction
eliminates active curation of mammal and bird collections housed at the Smithsonian Institution and the
research associated with the collection. It would also eliminate USGS research on systematics of North
American species important to Interior for management of trust responsibilities and development of
modern museum methods, including three-dimensional imaging and DNA cataloging to preserve
specimens and facilitate rapid electronic sharing of species information.

Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research (-$2,000,000/-13 FTE): This reduces the science that
supports Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies’ management of species under their
authority, such as manatees, grizzly bears, walruses, polar bears, and migratory birds. This decreases
support to States for management of game, fish, furbearer species, and waterfowl that provide recreational
fishing and hunting opportunities.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-8 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Reduce Status and Trends Program Operations (-$206,000/0 FTE): This reduces the support of field
research to understand the current condition (status) and changes to that condition (trends) for species
under management responsibility of Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, and tribal partners,
including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The Status and Trends Program responds to the monitoring and information needs and requirements of
resource management bureaus within Interior and other science and resource management organizations
by working with them to design, develop, and support research, monitoring, and assessment activities
required for resource management and policy decisions by a variety of stakeholders. As examples, the
USGS is collaborating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), the Canadian Wildlife Service, and Bat Conservation International to develop a
continental-scale, decadal assessment of bat populations; with State, tribal and local departments to
inform resource management decisions related to the multi-billion dollar fishery in the Great Lakes; and
with Federal and State agencies, county and conservation district representatives, universities,
conservation organizations, energy companies, county officials, and landowners to provide the science to
inform energy development, ranching and grazing, or wildlife habitat enhancement in Wyoming and other
semi-arid regions of the western United States.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-9
Ecosystems

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-10 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
Fisheries Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180
Fisheries Program $20,886 $20,846 $253 $0 -$5,253 $15,846 -$5,000
FTE 134 134 0 0 -34 100 -34

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Fisheries Program is $15,846,000 and 100 FTE, and includes a program
change of -$5,253,000 and -34 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $253,000.

Overview

Over 46 million recreational fishers annually generate approximately $48 billion for the American
economy in equipment, fuel purchases, guide services, and travel and lodging (American Sportfishing
Association, 2015). However, almost 40 percent of the Nation’s freshwater species at risk of decline or
vulnerable to extinction (National Fish Habitat Action Plan, 2012). Thriving fisheries and healthy
watersheds are vital to America’s food supply, outdoor recreation, and diverse and abundant ecosystems. The
USGS Fisheries Program provides science and technology to support protection and enhancement of the
Nation’s fisheries and aquatic resources, with particular focus on Interior trust responsibilities for
protected species, migratory species, and species managed through tribal and other international treaties.
USGS’s capacity and expertise are applied to the priorities of species conservation, habitat restoration,
disease prevention and management, energy development, and water quantity and quality needs.

The 2018 budget request supports:
• Risk assessments and advanced tool development for discovery, surveillance, and control of fish
diseases of salmon and trout used in international, Federal, State, and tribal hatcheries.
• Monitoring, modeling, and tool development to understand relationships between water flow and
chemistry, including extreme weather events such as drought and flood, on economically,
ecologically, and culturally important fish for use in water allocation decisions.
• Development of advanced remote sensing technologies, such as echosounders, acoustic telemetry,
environmental DNA and autonomous underwater vehicles to provide better, faster, safer, and
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-11
Ecosystems

cheaper data over larger geographic areas and all weather conditions for more effective fisheries
management in large waters, such as the Great Lakes and Alaska.
• Design and evaluation of fish passage structures and dam removal plans to enhance fisheries or
prevent invasive species movement in large rivers such as the Columbia, Connecticut, Klamath,
Elwha, Merrimack, Upper Mississippi, and Penobscot to support recreational, commercial, and
subsistence fisheries such as salmon, trout, eels, lamprey, sturgeon, herring, and shad.
• Evaluation of habitat projects to enhance anadromous fish populations (i.e., fish born in fresh
water, spending adult life in the sea, and returning to fresh water to spawn; salmon, smelt, shad,
striped bass, and sturgeon are common examples) by tribal partners, including the Nisqually
Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribe, and the Yakama Nation to most effectively target limited
financial resources.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Unconventional Oil and Gas Research (-$1,000,000/-7 FTE): This eliminates research on
ecological effects of unconventional oil and gas development in the Marcellus (Pennsylvania) and Bakken
(North Dakota) shales. This would decrease information for Federal and State resource management
agencies that guides natural gas development in ways that avoid or minimize impacts to valued fish and
wildlife habitat. The USGS would also discontinue development of genetic (specific genes) and genomic
(all of an organism's genes) indicators of environmental stress that can be used by resource managers,
public health agencies, and other responders to detect and respond to leaks and reduce risks to fish,
wildlife, and humans.

Reduce Contaminants Research (-$500,000/-4 FTE): This decreases the number of studies the USGS
will conduct on the sources and impacts of contaminants that may affect commercial and sport fish,
forage fish, and Federal species of management concern. This would also discontinue the development of
genetic and genomic tools to study impacts of endocrine disruptors on sport fish populations such as
small mouth bass.

Reduce Species-Specific Fisheries Research (-$3,500,000/-23 FTE): This reduces the science that
supports Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies’ management of species under their
authority, such as salmon, trout, sturgeon, shad, and migratory fish. This decreases support to states for
management of sports fisheries that provide recreational opportunities to anglers. This decrease would
also eliminate the Fisheries portion of the USGS Science Support Program, which funds approximately
30 projects per year with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to address research needs for fisheries
management.

Reduce Fisheries Program Operations (-$253,000/0 FTE): This reduces the support to protect and
enhance the Nation’s fisheries and aquatic resources, with particular focus on Interior trust responsibilities
for protected species, migratory species, and species managed through tribal and other international
treaties, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-12 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Science Collaboration

The Fisheries Program focuses on the study of aquatic animals and their habitats in close coordination
with Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies to meet pressing management needs for
science, advanced technologies, and decision support. For example, the USGS coordinates with the FWS
and the National Park Service (NPS) to establish research priorities for conservation of federally protected
species, including freshwater mussels and other species of concern; with the FWS, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), and coastal states
on research needs for anadromous fish, such as salmon, sturgeon, and shad, that cross multiple state and
federal boundaries; with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on fisheries research and
monitoring needs for management of the Upper Mississippi River Basin; and with the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission on research and monitoring needs for interjurisdictional fisheries managed jointly
with Canada.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-13
Ecosystems

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-14 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
Wildlife Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal Program
CR Fixed from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Annualized
Costs Changes
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180
Wildlife Program $45,757 $45,670 $508 $0 -$10,707 $35,471 -$10,199
FTE 269 269 0 0 -63 206 -63

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Wildlife Program is $35,471,000 and 206 FTE, and includes a program
change of -$10,707,000 and -63 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $508,000.

Overview

Abundant wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they depend are an enduring part of the
United States’ rich natural heritage. Their presence boosts the economy directly through hunting, bird
watching, and other recreational opportunities, and they contribute to food security, medical research, and
genetic diversity. Healthy habitats that support wildlife also provide healthy soils, clean water, and storm
mitigation. The USGS Wildlife Program provides science, technology, and decision support to inform
management of migratory birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and terrestrial
plants, with particular focus on Interior trust responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, and other Federal statutes. USGS science spans all aspects of wildlife biology and
ecology needed by Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal managers to make informed, cost-effective,
and balanced decisions of economic, social, ecological, and cultural importance.

The 2018 Budget Request supports:
• Surveys and investigations on sustainable waterfowl harvest used by wildlife agencies to establish
hunting regulations through the National Flyway Councils in support of a $3.0 billion waterfowl
hunting industry.
• Development of tools, technologies, advanced models, and decision support for use by Interior
Bureaus and other Federal, State and tribal agencies in design and siting of energy, transportation,
and other infrastructure to reduce conflict with wildlife and comply with laws and regulations.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-15
Ecosystems

• Population assessments, life history studies, and investigations into factors affecting change
among at-risk and endangered species in support of listing, downlisting, and delisting decisions
under the ESA, including a focus on collaborative efforts with states to conserve species and
habitats before listing is required.
• Surveillance, diagnostics, and source tracking of avian influenza in wild birds to support the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) program to predict, avoid, and contain influenza outbreaks in
domestic poultry flocks similar to the one that caused $3.3 billion in economic losses in 2015.
• Detection, surveillance, and mitigation tools to assess occurrence, and develop management
options for chronic wasting disease in large game species such as deer and elk, with recent focus
on use of anti-prion enzymes from native lichens as a potential management tool in infected game
farms.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Whooping Crane Propagation Program (-$1,500,000/-5 FTE): This eliminates the largest
dedicated captive breeding effort for Endangered Species Act-listed cranes and eliminates capacity within
Interior for avian studies that require controlled studies with large, rare birds. The program, while
providing valuable contributions to whooping crane recovery, is no longer required to meet species
recovery goals.

Reduce Contaminants Research (-$500,000/-3 FTE): This decreases the number of studies the USGS
conducts on the sources and impacts of contaminants that may affect wildlife and other terrestrial
organisms. This would also discontinue endocrine disruptor research on migratory birds, raptors, and
amphibians.

Reduce Changing Arctic Ecosystems Research and Monitoring (-$1,600,000/-11 FTE): This reduces
science support for management and policy decisions, including those related to trust responsibilities
defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It reduces science to support adaptation of management
by the FWS, the National park Service (NPS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in northern
Alaska, which affects Native communities. It also reduces the availability of information related to
transmission of avian influenza by migratory waterfowl passing through Alaska that could infect other
wildlife or poultry in the contiguous United States.

Reduce Species-Specific Wildlife Research (-$6,599,000/-44 FTE): This reduces the science that
supports Interior and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies’ management of species under their
authority, including marine mammals, ungulates, migratory and songbirds, and amphibians. It decreases
support to states for management of game and waterfowl species that provide recreational opportunities to
hunters. This decrease would also eliminate the USGS Natural Resource Preservation Program, which
funds approximately 40 projects per year with the NPS to address research needs for wildlife management
in National Parks.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-16 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Reduce Wildlife Program Operations (-$508,000/0 FTE): This reduces science, technology, and
decision support to inform management of migratory birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, amphibians
and reptiles, and terrestrial plants, with particular focus on Interior trust responsibilities, including
equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The USGS Wildlife Program provides scientific information to Interior bureaus and other Federal, State,
and tribal partners to inform decisions on wildlife resources under their management authorities,
including birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and other terrestrial animals. Primary collaborators
within Interior are the FWS, the NPS, the BLM, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Insular Affairs. USGS science from the Wildlife Program is
needed by agencies to determine appropriate harvest levels by hunters, manage disease outbreaks in both
wildlife and domestic animals, ensure public safety, and manage wildlife on National Refuges, Parks, and
BLM Units. In addition, USGS coordinates with the FWS Ecological Services offices on implementation
of the ESA, including providing science for decisions to list, delist, or downlist species and develop
recovery plans.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-17
Ecosystems

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-18 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
Environments Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180

Environments
Program $38,415 $38,342 $392 $0 -$9,392 $29,342 -$9,000
FTE 208 208 0 0 -59 149 -59

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Environments Program is $29,342,000 and 149 FTE, and includes a
program change of -$9,392,000 and -59 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR)
level. This funding level includes a fixed cost change of $392,000.

Overview

Knowledge of ecosystems and the trust resources they support is critical to the well-being of the Nation
because ecosystems supply the natural resources and other goods and services that the American people
require. Decisions on siting energy and mineral development, allocating water resources, conserving
habitat for hunting, fishing and recreation, repairing degraded lands and waters, and other land uses
benefit from an understanding of ecosystems. The USGS Environments Program provides science to
understand natural and human influences on the ecosystems, lands, and waters under management
responsibility of Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, and tribal partners. This helps land managers
balance land uses, resolve and prevent resource management conflicts, restore and maintain trust
resources for future generations, and keep communities safe. To facilitate this process, USGS scientists
analyze data collected over many decades to predict and assess the effects of threats like wildfire and
drought on existing and projected land uses, and develop tools to help managers understand risk and make
cost-effective resource management decisions. USGS scientists develop new techniques to improve the
condition of degraded lands, and provide information on costs and return on those investments.
Information and tools resulting from USGS studies help streamline energy and mineral development
permitting processes by helping managers select the most cost-effective and least impactful alternative.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-19
Ecosystems

The 2018 Budget Request supports:
• Data and tools used by fire and land management agencies, States, Tribes, landowners, and
communities to predict, suppress, restore fire damaged lands, and prevent wildfires, which
threaten human lives and health, cause billions in property damage, and degrade water quality
across the United States.
• Data, tools, and technologies to protect, manage, and rebuild coastal ecosystems throughout the
United States that protect lives and infrastructure during coastal storms and produce recreational
and commercial fisheries that create jobs and decrease foreign imports of seafood.
• Population assessments, technologies, models, and decision support tools on seabird migrations
and deep sea coral communities used by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to
inform permitting of offshore wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean.
• Population assessments, remote sensing technologies, models, and decision support tools on polar
bears and walrus used by BOEM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to inform
permitting of offshore oil and gas development in Alaska.
• Monitoring, assessment, and metagenomics of algal species and toxins contributing to the
incidence and severity of harmful algal blooms to improve management practices for farming and
land management.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Ecosystem Services Tool Development and Case Studies (-$1,000,000/-6 FTE): This reduces
the development of tools and case studies within the national framework for ecosystem services,
including delaying development of decision support systems for Interior bureaus and other Federal
agencies.

Reduce Greater Everglades Research and Monitoring (-$5,000,000/-33 FTE): This discontinues
research and monitoring on effects of altered water flow on the ecology of the Greater Everglades. This
will limit the scientific information available to the NPS, FWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
State of Florida to help inform investments for management and restoration.

Reduce Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring (-$3,000,000/-20 FTE): This decreases the
amount of scientific information used by six States and multiple Federal agencies to develop effective
management plans to reduce impacts of nutrients, sediment, and contaminants and improve habitat for
waterfowl, fish, and shellfish.

Reduce Environments Program Operations (-$392,000/0 FTE): This reduces the science to
understand natural and human influences on the ecosystems, lands, and waters under management
responsibility of Interior bureaus and other Federal, State, and tribal partners, including equipment,
services, and work with partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-20 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Science Collaboration

The Environments Program works with Interior bureaus and other Federal, State and tribal resource
management agencies to design and conduct research and monitoring required for land and water
management and policy decisions, and provide integrated applied information and decision support tools.
As examples, the USGS collaborates with Wyoming, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the FWS, and the National Park Service, to assess and facilitate
responsible natural gas development; with BOEM on science for energy development on the outer
continental shelf; and with the FWS and the NOAA Fisheries to assess potential conflicts between
wildlife and offshore wind energy development.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-21
Ecosystems

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-22 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
Invasive Species Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180
Invasive Species Program $17,330 $17,297 $127 $0 -$127 $17,297 $0
FTE 67 67 0 0 0 67 0

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Invasive Species Program is $17,297,000 and 67 FTE, a program change
of -$127,000 and 0 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding level
includes a fixed costs change of $127,000.

Overview

Fighting the economic, ecologic and health threats posed by over 6,500 plant and animal invaders costs
the United States economy over $120 billion annually (Ecological Economics, Volume 52, Issue 3,
February 2005). Invasive plants and animals cause significant economic losses and damage forests,
croplands, rangelands, and aquatic resources. Examples of issues and damages include blocked water
facilities and waterways, increased fire vulnerability and diminished grazing value, harm to the fisheries
industry, and wildlife diseases that threaten human health and agriculture. Invasive species are
contributing factors in 42 percent of all threatened and endangered species listings under the Endangered
Species Act. The USGS Invasive Species Program develops tools, technologies, and decision support
systems to detect, monitor, assess risk, and control aquatic and terrestrial invasive species, including
invasive wildlife diseases, across the United States and its Territories.

The 2018 Budget Request supports:
• Deliver critical data to the public on distribution of aquatic invasive species through a Web-based
platform that serves as an early warning and alert system for new invasions (Nonindigenous
Aquatic Species database - https://nas.er.usgs.gov/).
• Technical capacity to rapidly respond to new invasions, including method development to detect
Rapid Ohi’a Death fungus in Hawaiian trees; nationwide surveillance for salamander Bsal
(Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans) fungus prior to invasion; and immediate response to a 2016
invasive mussel detection in Montana that threatens the Columbia River basin.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-23
Ecosystems

• Testing and refinement of new molecular and remote sensing technologies including
environmental DNA (eDNA), drones, and infrared remote sensing to identify invasive species
early in an invasion when chances of eradication success are highest.
• Supporting early detection and rapid response for invasive reptiles such as Burmese pythons and
Argentine black and white tegus in Florida, boa constrictors in the Virgin Islands, and brown
treesnakes on Guam, including the Brown Treesnake Rapid Response Team.
• Species-specific controls for invasive species to minimize application costs and ecological effects
of treatments including targeted chemicals for Asian carp and zebra and quagga mussels,
pheromones (chemical substances) for sea lamprey, and microbes to control mosquitoes, common
reed, and cheatgrass.
• Providing much-needed data and technical expertise to natural resource managers working to
reduce the economic and ecological impacts of salt cedar in the southwest and cheatgrass
throughout the west.

• Improving the power of early detection tools, developing containment and control methodologies
such as carbon dioxide barriers, targeted chemical controls, and integrated management strategies
as part of the intergovernmental team preventing the spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Invasive Species Program Operations (-$127,000/0 FTE): This reduces the development of
tools, technologies, and decision support systems to detect, monitor, assess risk, and control aquatic and
terrestrial invasive species, including invasive wildlife diseases. In addition, equipment, services and
work with partners will be impacted.

Science Collaboration

USGS scientists partner with Interior and other Federal, State, tribal, and territorial agencies, non-
governmental entities, and private industry to help solve problems posed by invasive species. The USGS
provides science to combat invasive species by investigating by investigating new and emerging priorities
of national concern, developing early detection and rapid response methods, and developing innovative
control technologies. USGS invasive species efforts are cost-effective and provide resource managers
with tools and guidance to control invasive species.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-24 2018 Budget Justification
Ecosystems

Ecosystems
Cooperative Research Units Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Ecosystems $160,232 $159,927 $1,748 $0 -$29,547 $132,128 -$27,799
FTE 926 926 0 0 -180 746 -180
Cooperative Research
Units Program $17,371 $17,338 $262 $0 -$262 $17,338 $0
FTE 139 139 0 0 0 139 0

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Cooperative Research Units is $17,338,000 and 139 FTE, a program
change of -$262,000 and 0 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $262,000.

Overview

The Cooperative Research Unit (CRU) program meets the science and technical assistance needs of
Federal, State, and local natural resource managers. Each of the 40 CRUs, located in 38 States, is a
partnership of the USGS, other Interior bureaus, other Federal agencies, a State fish and wildlife agency, a
host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The FWS is a formal cooperator in most of the
CRUs. Since 1935, this cooperative relationship has provided a strong connection between the USGS,
Federal and State management agencies, and the national university community. Surveys of cooperators
indicate a greater than 95 percent satisfaction rate with program execution. The CRU structure leverages
cooperator resources to deliver program outcomes that exceed
what any cooperator could achieve alone. The majority of
CRU appropriated funding is invested in scientist salaries
with funding for research projects supplied by program
partners. Collectively, the cooperators provide a three-to-one
match for USGS funding. The program positions USGS
scientists at universities to help identify and respond to field-
level natural resource information needs, coordinate pooling
Locations of the Cooperative Research Units
of resources among agencies, trains and mentors graduate
students; and facilitates Federal and other natural resource
managers’ access to university expertise and facilities.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification F-25
Ecosystems

The 2018 budget request supports:
• A cost-effective, national network of Federal, State, and university partnerships pursuant to the
Cooperative Research Units Act of 1960, with a legislated mission of research, education, and
technical assistance focused on fish, wildlife, ecology, and natural resources.
• A network of expertise for actionable science, research, teaching, and technical assistance that is
responsive to needs of State and Federal resource agency decision-makers.
• Science capabilities responsive to resource management needs of Interior bureaus.

• A premier program for developing the future workforce through graduate education, mentoring,
and training to serve the broad natural resources management community successfully.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Cooperative Research Units Program Operations (-$262,000/0 FTE): This reduces ability
to provide a cost-effective, national network of Federal, State, and university partnerships per the
Cooperative Research Units Act of 1960, with a legislated mission of research, education, and technical
assistance focused on fish, wildlife, ecology, and natural resources. In addition, equipment, services and
work with partners will be impacted.

Science Collaboration

Each CRU is embedded within a university, but its research program is driven by Federal and State
management agency needs. This bridges gaps between natural resource science and natural resource
management. Most CRUs have decades-long relationships between the Unit scientists and the resource
management partners they serve, building on this legacy scientific support for management that sustains
and advances public benefits. The long-term and geographically broad scales of science fostered through
these long-standing partnerships allow scientists to answer the needs of resource managers.

U.S. Geological Survey
F-26 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources
Land Resources

Land Resources
USGS science increases our knowledge of
land resources and the awareness of the
impacts of land changes, improving our
economy, safety and quality of life.
USGS Landsat images of
Ohio/Mississippi River
confluence before and
during floods of 2011.

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Land Resources $139,975 $139,709 $602 -$1,477 -$25,987 $112,847 -$26,862

FTE 414 414 0 -7 -164 243 -171
National Land
Imaging Program $72,194 $72,057 $340 $0 $3,730 $76,127 $4,070
FTE 146 146 0 0 -52 94 -52
Land Change
Science Program $41,346 $41,267 $122 -$1,477 -$20,627 $19,285 -$21,982
FTE 208 208 0 -7 -88 113 -95
National and
Regional Climate
Adaptation Science
Centers $26,435 $26,385 $140 $0 -$9,090 $17,435 -$8,950
FTE 60 60 0 0 -24 36 -24

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-1
Land Resources

Summary of Program Changes
Internal Fixed
Request Component
($000's) Transfers FTE Costs Page
National Land Imaging Program +3,730 0 -52 +340 G--9
Landsat 9 Ground System Development +22,400 0 0 G--11
Eliminate Support for National Civil Applications
Center -4,847 -31 G--11
Reduce Satellite Operations -8,996 -4 G--11
Eliminate AmericaView State Grant Programs -1,215 0 G--11
Reduce Science Research and Investigations -3,272 -17 G--11
Reduce National Land Imaging Operations -340 0 G--11
Land Change Science Program -20,627 +29,318 +61 +122 G--13
Transfer from Climate Research and Development 0 +21,454 119 G--15
Transfer from Carbon Sequestration 0 +9,341 37 G--15
Eliminate Biologic Carbon Sequestration -5,237 -17 G--16
Transfer to Energy 0 -1,477 -7 G--16
Reduce Geologic Carbon Sequestration -2,627 -13 G--16
Eliminate Landscape Science Projects -1,498 -4 G--16
Eliminate Climate Research and Development
Activities -11,143 -54 G--17
Reduce Support Land Change Science Operations -122 0 G--17
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science
Centers -9,090 0 -24 +140 G--19
Eliminate Support for National Phenology Network -250 0 -2 G--21
Eliminate Support for GeoData Portal at the Office of
Water Infrastructure -200 0 -2 G--21
Realign the National and Regional Climate Adaptation
Science Centers -8,500 0 -20 G--22
Reduce National and Regional Climate Adaptation
Science Centers Operations -140 0 G--22
Climate Research and Development Program 0 -21,454 -119 0 N/A
Transfer to Land Change Science 0 -21,454 -119
Carbon Sequestration Program 0 -9,341 -37 0 N/A
Transfer to Land Change Science 0 -9,341 -37

Total Program Change -25,987 -1,477 -171 +602

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Land Resources Mission Area is $112,847,000 and 243 FTE, and
includes a program change of -$25,987,000 and -171 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing
Resolution (CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $602,000.

U.S. Geological Survey
G-2 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

Overview

The former USGS Climate and Land Use (CLU) Mission Area has been restructured into the Land
Resources Mission Area (LRMA). The new structure aligns with the functions, capabilities, and activities
that the LRMA will focus on in 2018 and beyond. For more information on this restructure, including a
crosswalk showing the shifts of major programs and funding levels between CLU and LRMA, please see
the Technical Adjustments chapter, Section B.

The USGS LRMA delivers data, tools, techniques, and analyses that advance understanding of
landscapes, the forces that shape them, and the interactions of plants, animals, and people that live within
them. LRMA scientists and engineers are world leaders in the research, monitoring, and remote sensing
necessary to understand and detect changes that affect land resources and processes that are essential to
the Nation’s economic growth and societal well-being. The resulting data and research products of the
LRMA provide an unbiased scientific foundation for decisions about the management of natural and built
landscapes and how they might be adapted to secure the Nation’s interests.

The information and applications produced by the LRMA are widely used by Interior other governmental
entities at all levels, and the public to reduce the adverse impacts of natural and manmade change and
support beneficial outcomes. These efforts, broadly framed as adaptation, are important to the
Department of the Interior as the largest manager of the Nation’s land, water and biological resources.
The LRMA research, modeling and forecasting supports adaptive management efforts, such as managing
forests during severe droughts; anticipating changes in permafrost, glaciers, and wildfire patterns in the
Arctic; and understanding flood-related risks.

The LRMA delivers observations, scientific understanding, and decision support for land resource
management in the United States through its three major subactivities:
 National Land Imaging Program (formerly the Land Remote Sensing Program)
https://remotesensing.usgs.gov/
 Land Change Science Program (merger of the former Land Change Science and Climate
Research & Development Programs) https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/lcs/;
https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/
 National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (formerly the National Climate
Change and Wildlife Science Center/Department of Interior Climate Science Centers)
https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/

The National Land Imaging (NLI) Program delivers remote sensing observation capacity, data, and
research to understand how landscapes and associated natural resources are changing at global and
regional scales. It collects, archives, and distributes a broad array of data from near-earth and satellite-
based remote sensing platforms. The NLI Program provides long-term records of changes in landscapes,
real-time change-detection capabilities, and associated interpretive tools that decision makers use for land
and resource management decisions. It also provides resource managers with analysis to apply land and
natural resources research, monitoring, and action-related resources where they are most likely to be

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-3
Land Resources

meaningful and relevant. The NLI Program fills a key role in the delivery of observations of the Earth’s
surface through its Landsat satellite missions that are designed and implemented in collaboration with
NASA. Studies show significant returns on the Landsat program investment. A study by the National
Geospatial Advisory Committee found nearly $100 million in annual savings from Landsat-derived
applications for irrigated agriculture in the western United States. A study by the USGS from over
11,000 current users of Landsat data (“The Users, Uses, and Value of Landsat Satellite Imagery – Results
from the 2012 Survey of Users” http://pubs.usgs.gov//2013/1269/,) estimated the annual economic benefit
of Landsat data to be $1.8 billion for U.S. users, and the National Research Council found that “The
economic and scientific benefits to the United States of Landsat imagery far exceed the investment in the
system.” Taken as a whole, USGS data holdings and observation networks are vital to understanding the
status of trends and health of our Nation’s ecosystems and natural resources.

The Land Change Science Program (LCSP) conducts fundamental and applied research to understand
the forces that shape landscapes and their potential uses, to distinguish between land surface change
resulting from natural forces and those that are associated with land use decisions, and to provide the
scientific bases for land use decisions that affect the safety of communities, economic prosperity, and
natural resources of the Nation. The program delivers research products, information, and computer
programs that help decision makers apply the knowledge and data gained from on-the-ground and remote
sensing observation systems to land use planning, natural resource management, and adaptation planning
decisions. Understanding the drivers, interactions, and consequences of land change is one focus of the
program. One ongoing study is developing a national-scale dataset that combines paleoclimate and
instrumental records to reconstruct the spatial extent, duration, and impacts of past droughts on terrestrial
and aquatic habitats. These data are providing insights into the drivers of changing water availability to
improve capabilities to anticipate drought impacts in the future. Another study is integrating data from
ecology, geology, and hydrology to examine how changing land use, sea level, and other factors combine
to shape coastal landforms and influence the communities and infrastructure that rely upon coastal
habitats. Another product of the LCSP, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) serves as the
definitive Landsat-based, high-resolution, land cover database for the Nation. The NLCD provides spatial
reference and descriptive data for characteristics of the land surface such as impacts on urban, agriculture,
and forest systems; percent impervious surface; and percent tree-canopy cover. The NLCD supports a
wide variety of Federal, State, local, tribal, and nongovernmental applications that seek to assess
ecosystem status and health, understand the patterns of biodiversity, predict economic effects of land use
decisions and climate fluctuations, and develop land management policy.

The National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (NRCASCs) deliver the on-the-
ground observations and research required to understand how changes in climate, land use, and associated
changes in land cover are affecting land resources and associated populations of fish and wildlife species
essential to the Nation’s natural heritage. It provides information essential to the development of tools
and applications that help resource managers understand which observed changes are meaningful, what
the observations suggest about the condition and sustainability of natural resources, and what can be done
to support conservation priorities of the Nation. The NRCACSs serve essential roles in adaptation
planning initiatives across the Nation, supporting regional and nationwide monitoring of key indicators of
the environmental variability of terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal habitats, along with the abundance and

U.S. Geological Survey
G-4 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

distribution of biota, invasive species, wildlife disease, and other ecological features. They likewise serve
as an essential interface between Federal researchers, land managers, and front line stewards of natural
resources.

The Land Resources Mission Area

Aerial and Space-borne Observations and Science

Science to
Serve
Stakeholders

Land Change Science and Adaptation Science for Natural
Applications Resource Management

Collectively, the subactivities within the LRMA deliver ground-based data and analyses, remotely-sensed
data and analyses, investigative research, and tools and applications necessary for the science-based
stewardship of lands, natural resources, and their uses in support of economic prosperity consistent with a
shared conservation ethic; the NLCD (http://www.mrlc.gov/), a tool developed by LRMA is an example
of this collaboration. The NLCD provides valuable information on the types of land cover changes that
are occurring, information that is essential for assessing water quality and quantity, and the risks from
natural hazards. The services and products of the LRMA are interwoven among activities of other USGS
Mission Areas, Federal agencies, and university partners. They also provide foundational knowledge and
data for a variety of Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector stakeholders, enabling each to serve the
needs of a much broader stakeholder base.

Partners and stakeholders are faced with countless decisions each year on issues as diverse as species
protection and recovery, fish and game regulations, land use planning, natural resources conservation and
stewardship, water allocations, and permitting for economic activities such as energy development,
mining, silviculture, agriculture, and residential and commercial development. Uncertainty in the
outcomes and consequences of those decisions on the Nation’s natural resources is complicated by threats

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-5
Land Resources

posed by natural disasters, changes in water availability and use, changes in the occurrence of extreme
weather events, invasive species, emerging wildlife diseases, and human demands for water, land, food,
energy and mineral resources. Without science to help inform the decision process, our Nation’s natural
wealththe goods and services provided by the Nation's lands and associated natural resources vital to
the health and well-being of human societiesare placed at risk. USGS data holdings and observation
networks are vital to understanding the status and trends and health of our Nation’s lands, associated
natural resources, and supported ecosystems. Many of these databases include decades-long records of
observations, collected under strict standards of quality assurance and quality control and made available
for public use.

The 2018 budget request allows the USGS to focus on its core Land Resources mission to observe,
classify, detect, and understand land surface change and to deliver information required by land and
natural resource managers. The 2018 Budget supports:

 Operating the Landsat program, including the Landsat 7 and 8 spacecraft currently on orbit, and
archiving, processing and disseminating Landsat satellite data.

 Developing the Landsat 9 ground system.

 Providing regional support for Interior bureaus and other resource managers through Climate
Adaptation Science Centers.

 Gathering and delivering of remote sensing, land cover, and land use data to the public.

 Continuing priority investigations of land resources and processes, including responses to natural
disturbances and other drivers of change.

Program Performance

In 2016, the National Land Imaging Program’s (NLI) efforts resulted in 1,100 new images being
generated every day from two operational Landsat satellites (Landsat 7 and Landsat 8), distributing 20
million Landsat products and other satellite, non-satellite, and geospatial products annually. These
images provide an unmatched capability to observe land use and land use change in local, regional, and
global scales. Imaging is essential because it provides regular and continuous observations of the Earth
otherwise unavailable to researchers, natural resource managers, and others who work across wide
geographical areas and applications. Landsat data informs public policy and economic decisions in many
disciplines, especially human health, agriculture, climate, energy, fire, natural disasters, urban growth,
water management, ecosystems and biodiversity, and forest management.

The Land Change Science Program (LCSP) coordinates the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) in
cooperation with other Federal partners in the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)
Consortium. NLCD provides the Nation with current, consistent, and public domain information on the
Nation's land cover. Land cover information provides Federal, State, local, and tribal officials with the

U.S. Geological Survey
G-6 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

information necessary for land use planning and land management policies. The current production
schedule is for new datasets to be created every five years. In 2016, the NLCD had mapped 15 percent of
the Earth’s surface area; by the end of 2017 that percentage should increase to 78 percent and by the end
of 2018 it is expected to be at 100 percent, thereby successfully completing the 5 year cycle.

The regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (the Centers) continued to focus on high-priority
science that identified potential impacts to various natural and cultural resources and expanded its
collaboration with other science providers in the public and private sectors. Benefits to the scientific
community and the public included research and tools that improve understanding and therefore the
ability to plan for land use and land cover change, impacts of droughts/floods/water availability, and
coastal response to sea level rise. The Centers also provided support to 35 graduate students through a
unique Science to Action Fellowship program as well as grants through the Centers host universities and
consortium partners to apply scientific research to real-world natural resource planning decisions that
factor in human activity and development on fish, wildlife, and ecosystems.

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

The National Land Imaging Program will:
 Continue to develop the Landsat 9 mission ground and flight systems in close collaboration with
NASA with a target launch in fiscal year 2021. The USGS will refine the ground system design
and procure data processing, ground network, and mission operations center initial software and
hardware in 2018.
 Implement an initial operating capability of the Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and
Projection (LCMAP) suite of utilities that will allow users to access the entire Landsat archive, to
examine past land surface conditions, reconstruct trends change through time, identify land
change as it occurs, develop more frequent land cover products with a greater degree of
automation, and project future conditions. LCMAP initial operational capability will occur in late
2018, providing Landsat analysis-ready data and land change products for all U.S. lands, with full
operating capability expected in 2019.

The Land Change Science Program will:
 Compile a continental-scale synthesis of natural patterns of drought to quantify the extent and
magnitude of past long-term droughts, as well as their impacts on terrestrial and aquatic
communities and other natural resources. Results will improve capabilities to anticipate future
changes in water availability and the impacts on society, agriculture, and ecosystems.
 Prepare a synthesis of glacier and permafrost change patterns in Alaska, and summarizing the
resulting impacts on water availability, sea level, ground stability and erosion, terrestrial and
aquatic communities and other natural resources. Results will improve capabilities to anticipate
future changes and the impacts on society, infrastructure, and ecosystems.
 Develop spatial models that couple hydrodynamics and vegetation to project changes in coastal
habitats and ecosystem processes in the southeastern United States. These models will allow

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-7
Land Resources

resource managers to evaluate potential impacts of various land use and water management
strategies and improve the likelihood of effective and sustainable outcomes.

The National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers will:
 Deliver ready-to-use science to support tribal efforts in planning for and adapting to climate
change impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The USGS is working with south-central U.S.
Tribes to increase basic knowledge of climate science, connect them with tools to assess their
communities’ vulnerabilities, and build their skills to develop adaptation and mitigation
strategies. Scientists will conduct multiple two-day training sessions for Native American Tribes
in Louisiana and New Mexico to increase participants’ knowledge that will help them better
manage their resources in the context of a changing climate. In conjunction with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, much of the work piloted in the South Central region will be used to expand tribal
capacity building across the Centers network.
 Projects focusing on the impacts of drought on fish and wildlife species have been initiated across
the West. The goal is to develop a common understanding of how drought may affect resources in
arid the regions of the West. One example of this work is the effort to share latest science on
long-term drought history in the Upper Missouri Headwaters (upstream from Three Forks, MT)
and future climate projections of relevance to drought planning to designated Drought Planners
from eight watersheds that are preparing drought plans as part of the Montana Drought Resilience
Partnership, a pilot project of the National Drought Resilience Partnership. The MT State
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation is the primary lead on the drought planning
work, and a key partner working with the Centers.
 Arctic regions are experiencing the impacts of changes in climate, causing impacting how local
communities utilize fish and wildlife species. Work with the University of Alaska – Fairbanks to
produce a summary of the “state of our knowledge” regarding climate adaptation and resilience
across the Arctic for local communities. Ultimately, this summary will be published as a chapter
in the forthcoming Arctic Resilience Assessment, a science-based report that aims to better
understand the impacts of change in the Arctic.

U.S. Geological Survey
G-8 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

Land Resources
National Land Imaging

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualize
Costs
d CR
Land Resources $139,975 $139,709 $602 -$1,477 -$25,987 $112,847 -$26,862
FTE 414 414 0 -7 -164 243 -171
National Land
Imaging Program $72,194 $72,057 $340 $0 $3,730 $76,127 $4,070
FTE 146 146 0 0 -52 94 -52

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for National Land Imaging is $76,127,000 and 94 FTE, a program change of
+$3,730,000 and -52 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding
level includes a fixed costs change of $340,000.

Program Overview

The National Land Imaging (NLI) Program provides a comprehensive, impartial record of conditions
across the planet’s land surface, to support civil Earth observation research and operational applications.
The program is a leader in defining the future of land remote sensing (http://remotesensing.usgs.gov/).
The NLI Program collects, processes, and provides the Nation with digital land-surface images acquired
by satellite and airborne sensors for decision makers in all 50 States and 185 countries for natural
resource and infrastructure monitoring and management, such as: forest health, wildfire recovery, effects
of drought on water supply, flood and other disaster recovery, education, agricultural production, energy
exploration and extraction (including oil, gas, coal, and other metal and mineral resources) and creating
commercial geospatial products and services. All USGS-owned images and derived information products
are available via the Internet under a free and open data-access policy (http://eros.usgs.gov/find-data).

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-9
Land Resources

Within the NLI Program, the
USGS operates the Landsat 7
and Landsat 8 satellites,
typically collecting over 1,000
scenes per day (each scene
covers over 12,000 square
miles). Landsat is the only
operational civil satellite with
both thermal and shorter
wavelengths sensors, which are
used extensively in water and
agricultural management. The
advantages these sensors
provide include capabilities
such as enabling users to
monitor water use, discriminate
moisture content of soils and Landsat over time aids water resource managers, for example, by
recording drought conditions at Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico,
vegetation, and estimate heat which provides half the water supply to El Paso, Texas.
units in urban areas.

The NLI program also manages the USGS partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) for the Sustainable Land Imaging Program, ensuring that the USGS and NASA
work together to engineer cost effective solutions to maintain sustained land remote sensing capabilities
for another 20 years. This effort includes a Landsat 9 mission, which the partnership is currently
developing. Landsat 9 will be an improved version of Landsat 8, with a more robust backup system and a
broader suite of operational products that capitalize on recent developments in processing and utilizing
analysis ready data. NASA and the USGS are working toward an anticipated launch date of fiscal year
2021 for Landsat 9. NLI operational elements, including satellite operations and image data collection,
archiving, processing, and distribution are performed by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and
Science (EROS) Center near Sioux
Falls, SD. In its National Satellite
Land Remote Sensing Data
Archive, EROS houses nearly 7
million Landsat satellite scenes
acquired globally since 1972. In its
Long Term Archive for aerial
photos and geospatial data, EROS
houses over six million high-
definition aerial mapping photos of
U.S. sites, some dating to 1937.
The NLI Program also coordinates
the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Monitoring of coalmine reclamation in West Virginia (left), using a UAS
(UAS) project, providing scientists equipped with electro-optical cameras (right).

U.S. Geological Survey
G-10 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

a way to look longer, closer, and more frequently at some of the Earth’s most remote locations, previously
too expensive or dangerous to monitor closely, such as the interior of volcanos or the depths of coal
mines.

2018 Program Changes
Landsat 9 Ground System Development (+$22,400,000/-0 FTE): This increase provides the additional
funding required for the continued development of the Landsat 9 ground system and supports the launch
date goal of fiscal year 2021. The funding would cover the following USGS activities: perform final
design activities for the Mission Operations Center (MOC), Ground Network Element (GNE), and Data
Processing and Archive System (DPAS), hold critical design reviews for each element, develop first
releases, support NASA Spacecraft final design and initial development, and conduct other activities
necessary to ensure that all ground system requirements for the Landsat 9 mission are met in accordance
with science mission design criteria.

Eliminate Support for the National Civil Applications Center (-$4,847,000/-31 FTE): This eliminates
direct funding for the National Civil Applications Center and associated USGS research, monitoring, and
data collection activities using classified remote sensing imagery, as well as its acquisition of imagery on
behalf of other civil agencies. Both of the USGS secure compartmentalized information facilities
(Reston, VA and Denver, CO) will be closed.

Reduce Satellite Operations (-$8,996,000/-4 FTE): This reduction defers noncritical system
maintenance and hardware and software refresh within archive operations, and distribution of satellite
data other than Landsat. This reduction would also reduce support for requirements and capabilities
analysis for a land observation satellite that may follow Landsat 9.

Eliminate AmericaView State Grant program (-$1,215,000/-0 FTE):
This reduction eliminates State grants that support the use of Landsat and other public domain remote
sensing satellite data through applied remote sensing research, K-12 and higher STEM education,
workforce development and technology transfer.

Reduce Science, Research and Investigations (-$3,272,000/ -17 FTE): This reduction would impact
Landsat based research across the United States, ending essentially all USGS remote sensing research
being conducted in a variety of application areas, including water resource monitoring, Chesapeake Bay
water quality, Rocky Mountain landslides permafrost studies and mapping of U.S. vegetation dynamics.
The reduction would also delay the availability of the Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and
Projection (LCMAP) designed to provide the foundation for Federal land change monitoring activities,
allowing time series modeling power of the Landsat data record going back to 1972. This reduction
would slow the development of new information product development and map products that would
affect land managers work associated with water resources, wildfire impacts, and our understanding of
snow covered areas across the Country.

Reduce National Land Imaging Program Operations (-$340,000/0 FTE): This reduction diminishes
the NLI’s ability to execute its core activities including collecting, processing and providing the Nation

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-11
Land Resources

with digital land surface images. These images provide critical information needed for natural resource
and infrastructure monitoring and management, including forest health, wildfire recovery, effects of
drought on water supply, flood and other disaster recovery, agricultural production and energy
exploration and extraction, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The NLI Program advances the science and methods for collecting, analyzing, and understanding user
needs in order to continually improve its product and service portfolio. It establishes and maintains
business policies and cooperative support structures that encourage and expand partnerships with Federal,
commercial, academic, and foreign cooperators. The program collaborates with many Federal partners,
including:
 Department of the Interior bureaus
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
 National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) on remote sensing science
 Data science business partners
 Commercial satellite data providers
 The Group on Earth Observations (GEO)
 The Committee on Earth Observing Satellites (CEOS)
 The European Space Agency (ESA) on data, science and technology leveraging
 Geoscience Australia on Data Cube science
 Other foreign remote sensing science cooperators to expand the understanding of, access to, and
value of NLI products and services

Through the Interior Remote Sensing Working Group and other venues, USGS collaborates with other
Interior bureaus to better understand their needs for land imaging observations, products and services, and
to seek departmental input on its new products and land imaging initiatives. Interior bureaus use Landsat
data and products for work including: drought, invasive species, fire mitigation, water use and availability
information, energy and mineral development. For example, the Bureau of Land Management maps land
cover in Alaska and monitors rangeland conditions throughout the West, Reclamation maps irrigated crop
types to model and monitor water demand, and the National Park Service produces burn severity maps
within 30 million acres distributed across over 270 parks. NLI also leads the development of an annual
Interior Remote Sensing Report to highlight and share key remote sensing technology applications that
support science and land management across the Department’s mission areas (http://eros.usgs.gov/doi-
remote-sensing-activities/2016/Home). Through its various activities and collaborations, the NLI program
is helping define the future of land remote sensing.

U.S. Geological Survey
G-12 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

Land Resources
Land Change Science

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Land Resources $139,975 $139,709 $602 -$1,477 -$25,987 $112,847 -$26,862
FTE 414 414 0 -7 -164 243 -171
Land Change
Science Program $41,346 $41,267 $122 -$-1,447 -$20,627 $19,285 -$21,982
FTE 208 208 0 -7 -88 113 -95

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Land Change Science Program is $19,285,000 and 113 FTE, a program
change of -$20,627,000 and +61 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed cost change of $122,000. The change in funding and FTE represents an
internal transfer of +$21,454,000 and 119 FTE from the Climate Research and Development Program,
and an internal transfer of +$9,341,000 and 37 FTE from the Carbon Sequestration Program. It also
includes an internal transfer of -$1,477,000 and -7 FTE to the Energy Resources Program (ERP) within
the Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area.

Program Overview

The Land Change Science Program (LCSP) provides resource managers, policy makers, and the public
with the data and tools required to forecast future resource condition and availability. Working with
resource managers, LCSP scientists develop information and tools identifying possible solutions to the
environmental, natural resource, and economic challenges required to promote resilient communities and
the sustainable use of the Nation’s resources. The program conducts research to understand and
anticipate how ecosystem change, natural disturbances, and resource use affect natural resources and
human communities. It uses long-term (historical) records of resource condition and use to document
trends in the availability and quality of natural resources, assesses the impacts of land cover and
environmental changes, and develops tools for decision makers to use for knowledgeable resource
allocation decisions. The Program draws on USGS expertise in geology, ecology, hydrology, and
geography to document patterns of change over a range of timescales and to assess and model/anticipate
impacts of these changes at local, regional, and national scales. Its research is aimed at understanding how
the processes that control the composition, distribution, and functioning of land and associated natural

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-13
Land Resources

resources are affected by natural disturbances (such as droughts, fire, sea level change) and land use
changes (such as urbanization, agriculture, water management).

The LCSP is composed of three main components: scientific research that documents patterns of
landscape variability and the impacts on natural resources; land cover monitoring and assessments to
support development and testing of tools and models to be used by stakeholders via LCMAP and related
analysis utilities; and risks and vulnerability assessments.

Land Change Science Program activities are planned and conducted over three- to five-year increments to
address specific research questions and to
develop applications to meet the needs of
stakeholders. This strategy provides sufficient
time and stability for a project to accomplish
their stated goals and produce products and
applications. It also provides the LCSP with the
flexibility to address emerging critical areas
(such as droughts or storm surges) by
coordinating among existing areas of expertise to
establish appropriate research teams.

By combining analysis of meteorological data (such as
The merged research and application activities information obtained from the Garden Wall weather
that previously were housed under the Land station at 7,400 ft. in Glacier National Park, Montana)
Change Science Program and Climate Research and measurements of snowpack depth, structure and
water content, USGS researchers are improving
and Development Program will integrate: (1) avalanche forecasting in the park. This provides real-
research activities aimed at understanding how time snow safety and weather data to aid snow removal
operations and recreational use of the park.
natural forces and land-use changes alter the
processes that influence the functioning and stability of the terrestrial and aquatic landscapes that support
our Nation's communities, infrastructure, and natural resources; (2) land use and land cover change at
multiple scales, documenting the geographic variability of change and defining the environmental,
economic and social drivers of change, as well as assessing the impacts of these changes; and (3)
computer models, sensitivity analyses, and information about geographic distributions of people and
infrastructure, along with the probability of specific disturbance factors, to evaluate a community’s
vulnerability and risk to a hazard event.

U.S. Geological Survey
G-14 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

2018 Internal Transfer

Internal Transfer from the former Climate and Research and Development Program to Land
Change Science Program (+$21,454,000/119 FTE): Paleontological, biogeochemical, and geographic
expertise previously funded by the Climate Research and Development Program will be utilized by the
Land Change Science Program (LCSP) to conduct investigations, deliver datasets, and support the
development of geospatial tools intended to support delivery of research and data required to: understand
the forces that shape landscapes and their potential uses; distinguish between changes resulting from
natural forces and those that are associated with land use decisions; and to provide the scientific bases for
decisions related to land use decisions that affect the safety of communities, economic prosperity, and
natural resources of the Nation. Examples of projects to be transferred to the LCSP include development
of land use and land cover change projection tools designed to help resource managers anticipate, plan
for, and adapt to changes in climate and associated resource management challenges; development of
geological data sets that can be used to understand how landscapes and associated natural resources have
been affected by past variations in climate, water availability, and natural disturbances over time to
improve understandings of our Nation’s present vulnerabilities to similar variations and the threats they
pose to economic prosperity and natural heritage; and investigations of arctic landscapes and the
challenges that changes in temperatures and water availability might present for the development, use,
and conservation of natural resources. Of the amounts transferred, $11.1 million and 54 FTE of Climate
R&D will be proposed for termination.

Internal Transfer from the former Carbon Sequestration Program to Land Change Science
Program (+$9,341,000/37 FTE): The USGS Carbon Sequestration Program focuses on two aspects of
carbon sequestration: biologic carbon sequestration and geologic carbon sequestration. The biologic
carbon sequestration project focuses on the science behind removing carbon from the atmosphere and
storing it in vegetation (particularly forests and wetlands), soil and sediments, and aquatic environments.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-15
Land Resources

The geologic carbon sequestration project researches the effects and capacity of pumping CO2 deep
underground: Will it induce seismic activity; what are the potential benefits in terms of enhanced oil
recovery; how much CO2 can be stored underground and where is it most feasible; and will the CO2
storage affect drinking water? Authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007
(P.L. 110-140), which calls for the USGS to develop a methodology for, and then complete a national
assessment of, the geologic storage capacity for CO2. It also directed Interior to conduct a national
assessment to quantify the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems, the capacity of ecosystems to sequester
additional carbon, and the rate of greenhouse gases fluxes in and out of the ecosystems (biologic carbon
sequestration). Of the amount transferred, $7.9 million and 30 FTE of biologic and geologic carbon
sequestration research is proposed for termination.

Internal Transfer from the Land Resources Mission Area, Carbon Sequestration Program to the
Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area, Energy Resources Program (-$1,477,000/7 FTE):
Carbon Sequestration – Geologic Research and Assessments project work will continue after transfer to
the Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area. The project will work on a national assessment of the
technically recoverable hydrocarbon resources resulting from CO2 injection and storage through CO2-
enhanced oil recovery. The goals of this work are to (1) complete and publish an assessment
methodology; (2) conduct a national assessment of recoverable oil and associated CO 2 storage that is
expected in future CO2-enhanced oil recovery operations; and (3) publish the assessment results. In
addition this funding will allow for a limited amount research on improving the geologic and technical
foundation of CO2 storage in various geologic basins.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Biologic Carbon Sequestration (-$5,237,000/-17 FTE for a total of $0 and 0 FTE):
This eliminates projects to develop methods for the inventory and tracking of carbon stored in ecosystems
in the United States, understand processes that control carbon sequestration and release in different
ecosystems, design strategies to enhance carbon stored in National Wildlife Refuge ecosystems, model
carbon flux in ecosystems, and create a standard methodology for the inventory of biological carbon
sequestration for the entire United States. These projects are conducted with partner land management
agencies.

Reduce Geologic Carbon Sequestration: (-$2,627,000/-13 FTE for a total of $0 and 0 FTE): This
greatly curtails work to monitor and evaluate induced seismicity associated with geologic CO2 storage,
evaluate the geochemistry of produced groundwater and the potential for CO2 leakage from the injection
zones, develop economic models for CO2 storage in saline formations and associated with enhanced oil
recovery operations. In addition, the budget constrains collaborative work with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the State geological surveys under The Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, to
assess the availability of recoverable natural helium and associated CO2 found in natural gas reservoirs in
the United States.

Eliminate Landscape Science Projects (–$1,498,000/-4 FTE):
This eliminates projects to develop methodologies for incorporating remote sensing products in landscape

U.S. Geological Survey
G-16 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

analyses, including land change effects on water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, wildlife habitat in the
Rocky Mountains, and Pacific coastal fogs related to water availability for restoration. This reduction
also eliminates support for carbon biogeochemical cycling and analyses of forest management practices
effects on wildfires and biodiversity.

Eliminate Climate Research and Development Activities (-$11,143,000/-54): This eliminates
investigations of changes in land cover and interactions between land use, land change and regional
climate, research to identify processes related to carbon in soils, studies of arid vegetation response to
extended drought, investigations of hydrologic and biogeochemical change in Prairie Pothole wetlands,
and investigations of heat exchange beneath polar ice sheets. The reduction also eliminates production of
datasets of land management practices and the effects of climate fluctuations on recreational uses of
wetlands and other lands characterized by organic soils and paleoclimate datasets that support modeling
of wildlife and fisheries changes and the capacity to understand how and why landscapes change over
time.

Reduce Land Change Science Program Operations (-$122,000/-0 FTE): This reduction diminishes the
LCSP’s ability to execute its core activities the development of information and tools identifying possible
solutions to the environmental, natural resource, and economic challenges required to promote resilient
communities and the sustainable use of the Nation’s resources, including equipment, services, and work
with partners.

Science Collaboration

The LCSP works with various domestic and international environmental and resource management
partners, including Interior bureaus, Federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service, NOAA), and State and non-
governmental organizations (such as universities, museums, the Association of American Geographers
and the World Bank). The program provides vital land cover information to these partners, as well as
integrating their data in environmental and economic risk and vulnerability assessments. The program
provides regional- to national-scale syntheses on patterns and impacts of drought and other environmental
stressors that are used in resource management planning and in model development and improvement
activities. The program also develops methodologies and tools to consistently measure and analyze the
volume of water contained in alpine glaciers of North America and elsewhere. These partners choose to
work with the USGS and the LCSP because of its broad, interdisciplinary expertise; rigorous set of
protocols (USGS Fundamental Science Practices); production of unbiased, objective, and impartial
scientific data; innovative monitoring technology, models, and research tools; and robust data
management and delivery systems.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-17
Land Resources

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
G-18 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

Land Resources
National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers

2016 2017 2018
Change
c Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Land Resources $139,975 $139,709 $602 -$1,477 -$25,987 $112,847 -$26,862
FTE 414 414 0 -7 -164 243 -171
National and Regional
Climate Adaptation
Science Centers $26,435 $26,385 $140 $0 -$9,090 $17,435 -$8,950
FTE 60 60 0 0 -24 36 -24

Summary of Budget Request
The 2018 budget request for the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers is
$17,435,000 and 36 FTE, a program change of -$9,090,000 and -24 FTE from the 2017 Annualized
Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $140,000.

Overview

Managers of natural resources need to understand the impacts of an evolving climate (which can
exacerbate ongoing stresses such as drought, fire regimes and invasive species) in order to develop
strategies that allow managers to adapt to a changing environment. The National and Regional Climate
Adaptation Science Centers (NRCASCs) program (formerly the National Climate Change and Wildlife
Science Center/Department of Interior Climate Science Centers; see the Technical Adjustment chapter for
more information) were created by Congress to address challenges resulting from climate and land-use
change and to work collaboratively with fish and wildlife managers to provide rigorous scientific
information and effective tools for adaptation planning. The Centers provide fish and wildlife managers
with the tools and information they need to develop and execute management strategies that adapt to
changes in natural resources, and minimize economic and other risks. The scientific work done within
NRCASCs is responsive to the following guiding principles:
 Responsive to the needs of resource managers.
 Prioritizes evaluation, translation, and synthesis of climate impact-research findings.
 Promotes rigorous, objective, and integrated research to advance fundamental understanding of
climate impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-19
Land Resources

 Develops approaches to ensure broad dissemination of results to the public and foster
professional scrutiny, critique, and learning.
 Promotes institutional efficiencies through partnerships to avoid duplication of effort and
leveraging opportunities in climate impact research.

The NRCASC manages the regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (the Centers) and conducts
research on the impacts of a changing environment on natural resources at a national level. The regional
science Centers focus on the impacts of climate variability on key fish and wildlife resources in their
respective regions. Each regional science center has a Federal director and a host university, but partner
with other universities in their region. The following table shows the regional the Centers as of April
2017.

Regional CASC Host Institution
(date established)
Alaska (2010) University of Alaska
Northwest (2010) Multi-institution consortium headed by Oregon State University
Southeast (2010) North Carolina State University
Southwest (2011) Multi-institution consortium headed by University of Arizona
North Central (2011) Multi-institution consortium headed by Colorado State University
South Central (2012) Multi-institution consortium headed by University of Oklahoma
Northeast (2012) Multi-institution consortium headed by University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Pacific Islands (2012) Multi-institution consortium headed by University of Hawaii, Manoa

The map above shows the locations of the USGS National Climate Adaptation Science
Center, the eight regional CASCs, and their respective university partners in 2017.
U.S. Geological Survey
G-20 2018 Budget Justification
Land Resources

The NRCASCs work closely with other USGS programs and larger Federal science groups and consist of
cooperative Federal-university research centers to provide the varied science expertise needed to address
key resource management problems. Strategic science planning at the Centers begins with input from fish
and wildlife management partners in each
region. Each regional science center has a
Stakeholder Advisory Committee with
representatives from various Department
of the Interior bureaus, other State and
Federal agencies, and Tribes, as well as
other science providers in the region. All
regional, the Centers have five-year
strategic plans that outline regional
science priorities. These plans, along with Warming Waters Threaten Montana’s Prized Westslope
ongoing stakeholder input, are used to Cutthroat Trout The native Westslope Cutthroat Trout has drawn
generations of fly-fishers to western Montana’s remote Flathead
guide annual science planning and funding River system. Trout fishing contributes tens of millions of dollars
decisions. The NRCASC has created a to Montana’s economy each year, and the Westslope Cutthroat is
one of the State’s most highly prized fish. A NRCASCs project
national strategic science plan to provide a shows rising temperatures are resulting in a loss of the cold-water
framework for the climate variability habitat this species needs, which in turn could have a negative
impacts research conducted or coordinated economic impact: declining Cutthroat Trout populations could
result in loss tourism revenues.
by the regional Centers. This plan also
establishes a context for a regional and national synthesis of science products and information across the
NRCASCs network. The NRCASC’s Federal Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Climate
Change and Natural Resource Science provides input to this national science plan, including developing
recommendations on ways to increase the “actionable science” produced by the science centers,
guidelines for interacting with tribal nations, and methods for evaluating the performance and
effectiveness of the program.

The 2018 Budget focuses science efforts on the highest priority needs for Interior, State, and tribal
partners. Work on climate impacts to fish and wildlife resources will become the focus of the regional
centers and continued partnerships with University partners to leverage resources in support of science
needs will be the business model employed to make effective use of our resources.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Support for National Phenology Network (-$250,000/-2 FTE): This eliminates work on a
10-year retrospective report linking changes in climate to changes in timing of natural events, such as bird
nesting, blooming of flowers and hatching of fish eggs. The report would have enhanced understanding of
the timing of events in plant and animal life cycles and how that timing can affect people and ecosystems.
This type of information provides insight on the best times to hunt and fish, when to plant and harvest
crops, and when to navigate waterways.

Eliminate Support for the GeoData Portal at the Office of Water Infrastructure (-$200,000/-2
FTE): The eliminates the program’s support for maintenance and new development and the addition of

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification G-21
Land Resources

new datasets in the GeoData Portal, as well as data management of large climate and land use/land cover
model output. Terminating this support would make it harder to access and use data that feed into
planning and decision support tools used for climate adaptation strategies that help minimize the
economic and other risks of changes to watersheds, lands, and wildlife.

Realign the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (formerly Climate Science
Centers) (-$8,500,000/-20 FTE): This reduction would eliminate four (of eight) regional CASCs,
refocusing work on the highest priority needs of Interior bureaus and States, supporting their development
and adaptation of fish and wildlife management plans, and natural resource adaptation science needs. The
realigned CASCs will continue cover science across the Nation; however, project capacity will need to
adjust to the realigned number of centers, potentially reducing activities by approximately 50 percent.

Reduce National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers Program Operations
(NRCASCs) (-$140,000/0 FTE): This reduction diminishes the NRCASCs ability to execute its core
activities including developing tools and information needed by fish and wildlife managers to develop and
execute management strategies to better adapt to changes in natural resources and to minimize economic
and other risks, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The National and regional CASCs are committed to a partnership-driven model. At the national and
regional level, major guidance on preferred science priorities and projects is provided by Federal, State
and tribal fish and wildlife managers. The Department of the Interior established the Advisory
Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science to provide advice on the operations,
partnerships, and science conducted by the NRCASCs. The regional science centers are continuing to
focus efforts on the co-production of actionable science, whereby researchers work closely with the end
users of the science information (e.g., natural resource managers), from development of the research
question to the analysis and production of the research output. In this way, the national and regional
centers can provide information that directly meets the needs of decision makers.

All work conducted by the regional science centers is done in conjunction with university partners to best
leverage DOI investment by providing access to not only government science expertise, but also expertise
that resides within the research universities. Further, investment by DOI has been used by our university
partners as a match to attract further investment, both public and private in the enterprise. This business
model has allowed DOI to leverage small investments that result in larger science outcomes in support of
DOI priorities.

U.S. Geological Survey
G-22 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
Environmental Health
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Energy and Mineral Resources,
and Environmental Health
USGS science informs decision making to improve
our economy, security, and quality of life.

Earth scientists collect soil samples to better understand the
potential for undiscovered mineral resources and to understand
natural levels of metals in soils. Source: Sue Karl, USGS.

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
Environmental Health $94,511 $94,331 $1,221 $1,477 -$5,519 $91,510 -$2,821
FTE 524 524 0 0 -24 500 -24
Energy and Mineral
Resources $73,066 $72,927 $934 $1,477 -$934 $74,404 $1,477
FTE 407 407 0 7 0 414 7
Mineral Resources
$48,371 $48,279 $644 $0 -$644 $48,279 $0
Program
FTE 277 277 0 0 0 277 0
Energy Resources
$24,695 $24,648 $290 $1,477 -$290 $26,125 $1,477
Program
FTE 130 130 0 7 0 137 7
Environmental Health $21,445 $21,404 $287 $0 -$4,585 $17,106 -$4,298
FTE 117 117 0 0 -31 86 -31
Contaminant Biology
$10,197 $10,178 $139 $0 -$2,087 $8,230 -$1,948
Program
FTE 57 57 0 0 -16 41 -16
Toxic Substances
$11,248 $11,226 $148 $0 -$2,498 $8,876 -$2,350
Hydrology Program
FTE 60 60 0 0 -15 45 -15

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-1
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Summary of Program Changes
Internal Fixed
Request Component
($000's) Transfers FTE Costs Page
Energy and Mineral Resources -934 +1,477 +7 +934 H-1
Mineral Resources Program -644 0 0 +644 H--9
Reduce Mineral Resources Program Operations -644 0 0 H--10
Energy Resources Program -290 +1,477 +7 +290 H--13
Coal and CO2 Sequestration/Utilization 0 1,477 7 H--14
Reduce Energy Resources Program Operations -290 0 0 H--15
Environmental Health -4,585 0 -31 +287 H--17
Contaminant Biology Program -2,087 0 -16 +139 H--17

Reduce Contaminant Research -1,948 0 -16 H--19
Reduce Contaminant Biology Program Operations -139 0 0 H--19
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program -2,498 0 -15 +148 H--21
Eliminate Radioactive Waste Disposal Science in
Support of Energy and Land and Water Stewardship -700 0 -5 H--23
Eliminate Municipal Wastewater Science to Support
Land and Water Stewardship and Infrastructure -100 0 -1 H--23
Eliminate Contaminant Science in Support of Water and
Land Stewardship, Energy, and Wastewater and Drinking
Water Infrastructure -1,550 0 -9 H--24
Reduce Toxic Substances Hydrology Program Operations -148 0 0 H--24
Total Program Change -5,519 +1,477 -24 +1,221

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health (EMEH) is
$91,510,000 and 500 FTE, and includes a program change of -$5,519,000 and -24 FTE from the 2017
Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of
$1,221,000. The 2018 budget request for EMEH also includes an internal transfer of +$1,477,000 from
the Land Resources Mission Area, Carbon Sequestration Program to the Energy and Mineral Resources
Mission Area, Energy Resources Program.

EMEH Activity Overview

The Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health (EMEH) Activity provides objective
science and information about the Nation’s energy and mineral resources, including identification of
critical resources, as well as the availability and economic and environmental effects of resources over
their lifecycle. EMEH leverages USGS expertise to provide decision makers in other agencies the
impartial science critical to safeguarding both economic security and public health and safety. While
EMEH functions as one budget activity, in practice, each subactivity operates autonomously as two
separate mission areas, each with its own Strategic Science Plan and Associate Director.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-2 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Energy and Mineral Resources Subactivity Overview

Energy and mineral
resources are a critical
component of the Nation’s
economy. The United States
has not achieved energy
independence and is
completely dependent upon
foreign nations for 20
different mineral
commodities, including
several that are critical for
national security. The
Nation depends on energy to
power homes and
businesses, as well as
minerals to manufacture
products such as cell
phones, laptops, and cars.
Figure 1: A USGS geologist completes field work in Alaska. The USGS delivers
As demands for energy and objective science to understand mineral resource potential, production, consumption
mineral resources grow, and interaction with the environment. Source: USGS MRP.
USGS research and
assessments become increasingly critical to understand the occurrence, quality, supply, and use of
national and global resources. The impartial, in-depth science provided by the USGS Mineral Resources
Program (MRP) and the Energy Resources Program (ERP) facilitates resource discovery and responsible
natural resource development as well as providing information and analyses for strategic, evidence-based
economic and geopolitical decisions.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (EM) Subactivity (https://www2.usgs.gov/energy_minerals/) consists
of the following two program elements:
 Mineral Resources Program (http://minerals.usgs.gov)
 Energy Resources Program (http://energy.usgs.gov)

In the 2018 request, there is a proposed technical adjustment for an internal transfer, in which the balance
of remaining funding for geologic carbon sequestration research related to the Energy and Independence
Security Act of 2007 would be transferred from the Land Resources Mission Area, Carbon Sequestration
Program to the Energy and Mineral Resources Subactivity, Energy Resources Program (+$1,477,000/+7
FTE). The transferred projects would be included in the ERP projects related to coal and CO2
sequestration/utilization. More information on this transfer is available in the Technical Adjustments
chapter, Section B.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-3
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

The 2018 budget request supports building upon existing Energy and Mineral Resources priorities and
capabilities, including:
 Conducting regional, national and global assessments of energy resources to understand the
distribution, quantity, and quality of various types of energy resources such as oil, gas, coal,
uranium, and geothermal.
 Evaluating the geological aspects of geothermal, gas hydrates, wind energy resources, and carbon
sequestration.
 Investigating the environmental effects of energy resource occurrence, production and use (e.g.,
produced waters associated with oil and gas development).
 Conducting assessments to understand the origin, formation, and distribution of mineral resources
in regions across the Nation.
 Developing geophysical and geochemical methods in support of mineral resource research.
 Creating georeferenced national databases, including mines and soil geochemistry.
 Continuing three-dimensional geologic mapping of the Nation.
 Continuing work to understand the supply chain vulnerabilities and lifecycles of critical minerals,
including rare earth elements.

Environmental Health Subactivity Overview

The Environmental Health (EH) Subactivity provides science that enhances the Nation’s health and
resource security by understanding and helping minimize health threats from environmental
contaminants and pathogens to natural resources critical to the Nation’s economy and prosperity.
States, municipalities, industry, Tribes, and the public regularly grapple with complex environmental
concerns that generate considerable economic uncertainty, media attention, debate, and public worry
about possible health impacts. As an objective scientific voice, industry and regulatory authorities
often seek USGS expertise to provide impartial science on contentious environmental issues. A key
role for the EH Subactivity is to provide impartial, non-regulatory science to understand actual versus
perceived risks to the health of humans and other organisms. As a result, EH science can help reduce
costs and balance regulatory burdens with opportunities to protect health. On matters of human health,
EH collaborates with partners from other Federal health agencies (e.g., the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), State and local health departments, academia (including
schools of public health or medicine), and other public health experts. EH also works with many other
partners outside of human health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National
Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, among others.

The Environmental Health Subactivity (https://www2.usgs.gov/envirohealth/) consists of the following
two program elements:
 Contaminant Biology Program (https://www2.usgs.gov/envirohealth/cbp/)
 Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (https://toxics.usgs.gov/)
U.S. Geological Survey
H-4 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

The 2018 budget request
supports the continuation
of core work related to
natural resource
stewardship, energy and
mineral resource
development, and public
safety and security.
Projects will focus on:
 Helping protect
employee,
resident, and
visitor health on
public lands
(including
national parks,
lands managed
by the Bureau of
Land
Management, Figure 2: Scientists supported by the Environmental Health Subactivity and other USGS
Mission Areas often brave cold and other adverse conditions to collect samples for
and U.S. analysis back in the laboratory. Such science is crucial to help understand actual versus
National Forest perceived risks to the health of humans or other organisms from natural or human
sourced contaminants in the environment. Source: Adam Benthem, USGS.
lands) as well as
on Native lands.
 Drinking water and food safety.
 Helping understand actual versus perceived health implications of byproducts from energy and
mineral resource development.
 Understanding and mitigating harmful algal blooms and algal toxins.
 Anticipating and mitigating the health impacts of disasters.

Through these activities, Environmental Health science will help protect public safety and health while
minimizing regulatory burdens and enhancing our Nation’s natural resource infrastructure.

Environmental Health collaborates with a number of governmental partners, including Federal partners,
who seek the quality of non-regulatory science that the USGS provides. This has led to an increased
number of projects funded by external partners that have provided science insights and multi-disciplinary
exposures that enhance the broader USGS ability to produce high-quality science.

The combined work of the Contaminant Biology Program and the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program
supports multiple Department of the Interior priorities, including:

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-5
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

 Energy: Perceived health impacts from byproducts of energy development are an important
factor in public acceptance of energy resource development, and the USGS provides non-
regulatory, impartial science to inform all parties about actual versus perceived impacts.
 Infrastructure: USGS Environmental Health science helps inform upgrades to wastewater and
drinking water treatment infrastructure, road building, and other infrastructure development on
public lands.
 Recreation and Sporting, and Land and Water Stewardship: USGS Environmental Health
science provides key impartial information related to land management decisions that balance
hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation with the Nation’s energy, mineral, and other resource
development priorities. For example, EH-supported science can help make sound decisions
regarding the permitting of energy and mineral resource development while minimizing health
risks due to potential contaminant and pathogen exposures on fish and wildlife species of high
interest for conservation or that are Interior trust obligations. USGS Environmental Health
science also helps protect the health of visitors and workers on Federal lands from exposures to
environmental contaminants and pathogens.
 Tribal Nations: Environmental factors are recognized drivers of Native health. USGS
Environmental Health science helps inform efforts to protect the health of Native populations,
and the fish and wildlife they rely on as sources of nutrition, from environmental contaminants
and pathogens.
 Management and Efficiencies: USGS Environmental Health science helps enhance efficiency
and management of Interior activities, by informing decision making, reducing costs, and
balancing regulatory burdens and red tape with opportunities to protect health. For example,
USGS science informs policy decisions regarding pre-mining environmental conditions, mine
permitting, and abandoned mine cleanup on Interior lands. USGS science also helps inform
policy decisions by Interior health specialists to protect Interior workers (including wildland fire
fighters) from exposures to geologically-sourced contaminants such as asbestos and arsenic in
dusts and wildland fire emissions.

Program Performance

Energy and Mineral Resources Subactivity

In 2016, improvements were made to the Mineral Resources Program site, including interactive map
applications, allowing users easier access to data in map form. In 2017 and 2018, the Mineral Resources
Program will expand geophysical and remote sensing work in different regions of the United States,
including Alaska and the midcontinent region, producing new digital geologic maps with a searchable
database. This work will facilitate the identification and evaluation of mineral and energy resources
potential in these geographic regions. The USGS will also increase its work on understanding new
sources of critical minerals. In 2017 and 2018, the Energy Resources Program will continue collaborative
assessments with the Mineral Resources Program of domestic uranium, and will expand unconventional
oil and gas research on the geologic causes of variability in petroleum and water recovery, in addition to
releasing a global assessment of unconventional oil and gas resources. Lastly, in 2018, the Energy

U.S. Geological Survey
H-6 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Resources Program will implement an externally vetted Quality Management System across its Energy
Geochemistry Laboratories. The Energy Resources Program also expects completion of a strategic
evaluation of the program being conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine.

Environmental Health Subactivity

The Environmental Health Subactivity met or exceeded its 2016 performance targets, with 247
knowledge products, such as publications, provided to the public and decision makers, which is a 21
percent increase over the prior year. Successful accomplishment of program objectives is dependent upon
having the right types and quantities of scientists, facilities, and information technology systems to aid in
scientific research, information sharing, and information publication.

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

The Energy and Mineral Resources programs will conduct work in following areas:

Mineral Resources Program:
 Continue support for collection, analysis, and dissemination of minerals information and
materials flow studies.
 Conduct work on new sources of critical minerals and on the lifecycles of critical minerals.
 Improve the understanding of the genesis and distribution of the Nation’s critical mineral
resources, particularly in Alaska and the midcontinent and southeast regions of the United States.
 Conduct work on environmental impacts of resource extraction and understanding how mineral
resources interact with the environment to affect human and ecosystem health.

Energy Resources Program:
 Release USGS assessments of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in U.S.
and non-U.S. basins. Continue the underlying geological, geophysical and geochemical research
that underpins the assessments.
 Expand unconventional oil and gas research efforts, begun in 2016, on the geologic causes of
variability in the recovery of petroleum and water, and studies of baseline water quality.
 Continue research into geothermal resources aimed at improving the viability of Enhanced
Geothermal Systems and studying environmental impacts of geothermal energy development on
Federal lands.
 Support USGS gas hydrate studies with the USGS Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources
Program, and contribute to DOE- and industry-sponsored cooperative gas hydrate projects,
aiming for initiating a multi-year gas hydrate production test on the Alaska North Slope in 2018.
 Continue efforts to assess domestic coal resources in the remaining basins of the United States
that have yet to be evaluated.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-7
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

 Submit for external peer review the USGS-reviewed assessment methodology of the potential
environmental impacts associated with uranium resource development. The assessment
methodology, a collaborative effort between the Energy Resources Program and the USGS Toxic
Substances Hydrology Program, will be reviewed by a panel of external technical experts.

The Environmental Health programs will conduct work in the following areas:
 Harmful Algal Toxins: Continue to develop and apply new methods to forecast, detect, predict
extent of, and help understand health implications of toxins produced by harmful algal blooms.
 Drinking Water Infrastructure: Continue science to understand occurrences and potential
health implications of contaminants and pathogens related to the sources, treatment methods, and
conveyance of private and public drinking waters, including sites in national parks.
 Energy and Mineral Resource Development: In collaboration with other USGS Mission
Areas, continue science activities to examine potential implications of past, current, and future
energy and mineral resource development on the health of humans and other organisms, in order
to inform land stewardship decisions and abandoned mine lands cleanup.
 Compounds Used to Enhance Public Safety and Management of Natural Resources:
Continue science activities to understand occurrences and potential health implications of
environmental exposures to compounds used for control of vector-borne disease agents,
agricultural pest control, agricultural productivity enhancement, and natural resource and fire
management.
 Disasters and Natural Hazards: Continue science activities to understand implications of
contaminants and pathogens produced by disasters on the health of humans and other organisms.
 Environmental Mercury Research: Continue science activities to better understand exposures
of humans and other organisms to environmental mercury, and on the toxicological and
ecological significance of these exposures to the health of aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
 Environmental Pathogen Exposures: Continue science to understand occurrences,
environmental viability, and potential health effects of pathogens found in, or released from hosts
into, waters, sediments, soils, dusts, and foods (e.g., highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, the
soil fungus that causes Valley Fever, and the amoeba that causes Primary Amoebic
Meningoencephalitis).

U.S. Geological Survey
H-8 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Energy and Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
Environmental Health $94,511 $94,331 $1,221 $1,477 -$5,519 $91,510 -$2,821
FTE 524 524 0 0 -24 500 -24
Energy and Mineral
Resources $73,066 $72,927 $934 $1,477 -$934 $74,404 $1,477
FTE 407 407 0 7 0 414 7
Mineral Resources
$48,371 $48,279 $644 $0 -$644 $48,279 $0
Program
FTE 277 277 0 0 0 277 0

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is $48,279,000 and 277 FTE, a
program change of -$644,000 and -0 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level.
This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $644,000.

Overview

The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP)
is the sole Federal source of scientific
information and unbiased research on nonfuel
mineral potential, production, consumption, and
interaction with the environment. The MRP
supports data collection and research on a wide
variety of nonfuel mineral resources that are
important to the economic stability and national
security of the United States.

The USGS has served as a trusted source of
information on mineral resources since Congress
established it in 1879. In the intervening years,
the Nation has evolved significantly, but the
Figure 3: Critical minerals play everyday roles in energy,
communication, and national security. Source: USGS MRP.
need for mineral resources and the science and
tools to understand them is greater than ever.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-9
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Minerals are a critical part of everyday life and are essential to developing and sustaining a high-tech
economy. From smart phones, computers and hybrid cars, to aircraft, new energy technologies and
advanced national defense systems—the need for minerals is great and ever increasing. According to a
2008 report by the National Academy of Sciences, every year, the Nation needs more than 25,000 pounds
of new nonfuel minerals per person to produce items needed for everyday use. Yet, the Nation continues
to be 100 percent dependent upon foreign countries for 20 minerals and imports a majority of its supply
for an additional 30 minerals. Combined, these minerals have uses ranging from everyday commodities
to smartphones to weapons systems.

Therefore, understanding information about national and global mineral potential, production, and
consumption is geopolitically and economically important. Furthermore, a detailed scientific
understanding of how minerals
interact with the environment is
essential to inform decision making on
public lands and resources and for
protecting and improving public
health, safety, and environmental
quality.

The 2018 President’s budget request
focuses on building upon MRP’s core
work, including:
 Conducting research on the
origin, distribution, and formation of
known mineral deposits.
 Conducting research on
Figure 4: Estimated mineral resource potential for selected rare earth undiscovered mineral resources.
elements and other critical minerals in Alaska. Source: USGS MRP.
 Conducting geologic,
geochemical, and geophysical mapping of mineral resources in regions across the Nation.
 Continuing work to understand the supply chains and lifecycles of critical minerals and rare earth
elements.

2018 Program Change

Reduce Mineral Resources Program Operations (-$644,000/0 FTE): This reduces the MRP’s ability
to execute its core activities, such as conducting assessments of mineral resources across the Nation and
research on mineral potential, production, and consumption, including equipment, services, and work
with partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-10 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Science Collaboration

The MRP collaborates with a number of external organizations, including Federal agencies and multi-
agency working groups, States (through groups such as the Association of American State Geologists), as
well as industry stakeholders, to leverage the expertise and contributions of partners toward the goal of a
more thorough understanding of
our Nation’s mineral potential,
production, and consumption. The
MRP has been closely involved
with critical minerals efforts in
developing a critical mineral
early-warning screening tool in
collaboration with Federal agency
partners, including the Department
of Energy, the Department of
Defense, and the Department of
Commerce, among others) and
industry stakeholders.
Additionally, both the State of
Alaska and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) derive value
from the MRP’s critical mineral
Figure 5: Geochemical research provides essential data for mineral resource
resource assessments conducted in assessments. Source: USGS MRP.
Alaska, as resource development
is an important part of the economy of that State, and the BLM considers the MRP’s mineral resource
assessments essential for their mandated duties to manage Federal land. The MRP’s National Minerals
Information Center supplies Federal government agencies (including the U.S. Census Bureau, the
Department of Defense, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and
various national security agencies) with important information regarding the mineral supply and demand
of the United States and other nations, which these agencies utilize to make strategic economic, trade, and
national security decisions.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-11
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-12 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Energy and Mineral Resources
Energy Resources Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Energy and Mineral Resources,
and Environmental Health $94,511 $94,331 $1,221 $1,477 -$5,519 $91,510 -$2,821

FTE 524 524 0 0 -24 500 -24
Energy and Mineral
Resources $73,066 $72,927 $934 $1,477 -$934 $74,404 $1,477
FTE 407 407 0 7 0 414 7
Energy Resources Program $24,695 $24,648 $290 $1,477 -$290 $26,125 $1,477
FTE 130 130 0 7 0 137 7

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Energy
Resources Program (ERP) is $26,125,000 and
137 FTE, a program change of -$290,000 and -0
FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing
Resolution (CR) level. This funding level
includes a fixed costs change of $290,000.
Additionally, there is an internal transfer from
the Land Resources Mission Area, Carbon
Sequestration Program, to the Energy and
Mineral Resources Subactivity, Energy
Resources Program of +$1,477,000 and +7 FTE.
The transferred funds from the Land Resources
Mission Area’s geologic carbon sequestration
project would be used for ERP work on Coal and
CO2 Sequestration/Utilization.

Overview

The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) is Figure 6: Assessment Units of the Wolfcamp Shale,
the sole provider of unbiased, publicly available Midland Basin in Texas. Released in November 2016, this
estimates of geological energy resources for the is the largest estimate of continuous oil that the USGS has
ever assessed in the United States. Source: USGS ERP.
United States (exclusive of the U.S. Outer
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-13
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Continental Shelf), and provides publicly available estimates related to global oil and gas resources. The
ERP addresses the challenge of increasing demand for energy sources by conducting basic and applied
research on geologic energy resources and on the environmental and economic impacts of their use.
Among the geologic energy resources that the ERP studies are: oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane,
gas hydrates, geothermal resources, uranium, oil shale, bitumen, and heavy oil. ERP science informs
decision making related to domestic and foreign energy resources, as well as the management of energy
resources on Federal lands.

As demand for energy
resources continues to
increase, understanding the
Nation’s supply and
recoverability of energy
resources is important for
sustaining a strong national
economy. The ERP provides
the publicly available data and
tools to inform energy policy
discussions and to support
science-based decisions that
facilitate an all-of-the-above
approach to energy
development and responsible
use of resources. Figure 7: USGS scientists drilling a research core near Waco, Texas. This core was
drilled by USGS during field work for an oil and gas assessment for the Eagle Ford of
the Gulf Coast Basins. Cores like these provide information on the various rock layers,
The 2018 President’s budget such as their make-up, age, etc. Source: USGS ERP.
focuses on:
 Conducting assessments of undiscovered, technically recoverable energy resources to understand
the distribution, quantity, and quality of various types of domestic energy resources, such as oil,
gas, coal, uranium, and geothermal.
 Initiating long-term production testing of gas hydrate potential on the Alaska North Slope.
 Conducting additional geologic mapping and interpretation of Arctic petroleum systems.
 Furthering our understanding of Enhanced Geothermal Systems and the potential impact they
may have on the Nation’s energy supply.

2018 Internal Transfer

Internal Transfer from the Land Resources Mission Area, Carbon Sequestration Program to the
Energy and Minerals Resources Mission Area, Energy Resources Program (+$1,477,000/+7 FTE):
Carbon Sequestration – Geologic Research and Assessments project work will continue after transfer to
the Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area. The project will work on a national assessment of the
technically recoverable hydrocarbon resources resulting from CO2 injection and storage through CO2-

U.S. Geological Survey
H-14 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

enhanced oil recovery. The goals of this work are to: (1) complete and publish an assessment
methodology; (2) conduct a national assessment of recoverable oil and associated CO 2 storage that is
expected in future CO2-enhanced oil recovery operations; and (3) publish the assessment results. In
addition, this funding will allow for a limited amount research on improving the geologic and technical
foundation of CO2 storage in various geologic basins.

2018 Program Change

Reduce Energy Resources Program Operations (-$290,000/0 FTE): This reduces the ERP’s ability to
execute its core activities, including conducting energy resource assessments and research on geologic
energy resources such as: oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane, gas hydrates, geothermal resources,
uranium, oil shale, bitumen, and heavy oil, and includes equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The Energy Resources Program participates in valuable scientific collaborations with a number of
external partners. The ERP works with Federal government agencies, including the U.S. Department of
Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on the Federal Multiagency Collaboration on
Unconventional Oil and Gas (UOG) Research, a scientific research collaboration designed to better
understand UOG resources and their impacts. Other ERP partners on its UOG projects have included
State geological surveys, industry, academia (including the University of Texas at El Paso, the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, the University of Kentucky, the California Institute of
Technology, and Hebrew University), the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The BLM partners
with ERP on a variety energy resource projects, including the ERP’s work on geothermal energy on
Federal lands.

The Science and Decisions Center (SDC), within ERP, conducts research and applications to make
scientific information, particularly that regarding energy and mineral resources, more useful and useable
for land and resource management decisions so that societal and economic consequences of alternatives,
including tradeoffs, can be assessed. SDC collaborates with other Federal agencies, universities, and non-
governmental organizations in its efforts to increase the use and value of scientific information in decision
making. For instance, the SDC’s Multi-Resource Analysis proof-of-concept studies to integrate energy,
mineral, water, and biologic assessments have included participation by Sandia National Laboratory, the
University of Mexico, and Brigham Young University – Idaho. Additionally, the SDC’s work on
developing accounts for natural capital in the United States includes collaboration with scientists from
Federal agencies such as the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Department of State, as well as other academic, non-profit and for-profit organizations, such as the
University of Minnesota, the University of Hawaii, Australian National University, Statistics Canada, and
Ernst and Young. The SDC’s work on innovation, citizen science, and crowd sourcing has included
collaborations across the Federal government.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-15
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-16 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Environmental Health
Contaminant Biology Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
Environmental
Health $94,511 $94,331 $1,221 $1,477 -$5,519 $91,510 -$2,821
FTE 524 524 0 0 -24 500 -24
Environmental
Health $21,445 $21,404 $287 $0 -$4,585 $17,106 -$4,298
FTE 117 117 0 0 0 86 -31
Contaminant
$10,197 $10,178 $139 $0 -$2,087 $8,230 -$1,948
Biology Program
FTE 57 57 0 0 -16 41 -16

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the
Contaminant Biology Program
(CBP) is $8,230,000 and 41 FTE,
a program change of -$2,087,000
and -16 FTE from the 2017
Annualized Continuing Resolution
(CR) level. This funding level
includes a fixed costs change of
$139,000.

Overview

Environmental Health is
comprised of the Contaminant
Biology Program (CBP) and the
Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program (TSHP). Working in Figure 8: Shooting nuisance ground squirrels is an important form of non-
close collaboration, both programs chemical pest control throughout the West, where the squirrel carcasses
provide decision makers the become a food source for avian scavengers such as golden eagles (Aquila
chrysaetos). USGS scientists funded by the Contaminant Biology Program
science regarding exposures to developed a new tool that will be critical to future research designed to
toxicological and infectious understand the health risks, if any, to avian scavengers due to incidental lead
exposures through prey consumption. Source: Garth Herring, USGS.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-17
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

disease agents in the environment that is needed to make resource development, disaster response, and
infrastructure decisions. The objective, non-regulatory research produced by both CBP and TSHP is used
by many Federal partners to support sound decision making while protecting American heritage in
fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation.

The USGS Contaminant Biology Program develops and applies advanced laboratory methods and field
investigations to understand potential biological health effects from exposures to chemical and microbial
hazards in the environment. The CBP provides science that advances informed decision making by:
 Identifying and assessing risks from exposure to environmental disease agents.
 Developing strategies to prevent and mitigate those risks.
 Collaborating closely with public health and agricultural partners to identify and understand the
critical linkages among the health of the environment, fish and wildlife, domesticated animals,
and humans
 Preparing the Nation for, and responding to, impacts and related health threats of natural and
human-caused disasters.

The 2018 President’s
budget request aligns CBP
science activities with the
Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program in
order to provide an
integrated scientific
understanding about the
origins and movement of
contaminants and
pathogens in the
environment, and whether
or not there are actual
health concerns. The
science resulting from this
collaborative and
integrated design helps
land and water stewards Figure 9: The Contaminant Biology Program supported development of a
understand the full visualization tool that helps USGS Ecosystem Mission Area researchers and public
health officials see how relationships between poultry density and waterfowl
spectrum of tradeoffs migration routes affect the threat of avian influenza to people and the poultry
related to their decisions industry. The information developed by this and subsequent research on the life
cycle of avian influenza in environmental waters and soils will help inform land and
and actions by focusing water stewardship decisions designed to control its spread. Source: USGS – Patuxent
on actual versus perceived Wildlife Research Center.
health risks.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-18 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

In 2018, the CBP will focus on the biological effects of:
 Organic contaminants such as hormones, other endocrine disruptors, and byproducts of oil and
gas production (to the capacity that CBP will be equipped to pursue those topics subsequent to the
proposed reductions).
 Inorganic contaminants such as mercury, lead, and other metals.
 Harmful algal toxins and other biogenic contaminants
 Avian influenza and other pathogens.
 Contaminants and pathogens released during both human-caused and natural disasters
 The effects of contaminants and pathogens on the health of Department of Interior (Interior) Trust
species.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Contaminant Research (-$1,948,000/-16 FTE): This reduction decreases scientific
information, such as sampling and analysis used to determine actual rather than perceived health risks of
legacy and emerging contaminants to humans, fish, and wildlife. This loss of information would impact
specific regions of the Nation (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the Great Lakes) as well as lands
managed for recreational hunting and fishing, tribal subsistence, or other recreational purposes. The
reduction also decreases the
transferability of this information
across the Nation, reducing the
availability of comparative science
to analyze similar circumstances of
contaminant occurrence in other
areas across the United States and
inform policies and practices.

Reduce Contaminant Biology
Program Operations (-$139,000/-
0 FTE): This reduces the CBP’s
ability to execute its core
activities, including conducting
science regarding exposures to
toxicological and infectious
disease agents in the environment
that is needed to make decisions of Figure 10: Science funded by the Contaminant Biology Program found an
association between the decline in environmental concentrations of legacy
critical importance to the Nation, organic contaminants over the last 35 years with a rebound in the osprey
such as decisions related to (Pandion haliaetus) population of the Chesapeake Bay. These results inform
resource development, disaster land and water stewards as they evaluate the efficacy of efforts to enhance
osprey populations in the Bay. Source: Rebecca S. Lazarus, USGS.
response, and infrastructure, and
including equipment, services, and work with partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-19
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Science Collaboration

In order to provide valuable scientific contributions that
take into account stakeholder needs and leverage the
diverse expertise of partners, the Contaminant Biology
Program coordinates with a number of partner
organizations in conducting its work, including Federal,
State, and local agencies, as well as Tribes, academia and
non-governmental organizations. For example, science
supported by the Contaminant Biology Program is
designed and conducted to address Department of Interior
priorities, such as those related to energy, land and water
stewardship, recreation and sporting, and tribal Nations
through a range of health effects research. Recent
research includes contaminant and pathogen exposures to
species of concern economically, ecologically and
recreationally, such as sturgeon, smallmouth bass, osprey,
and golden eagles, as well as native pollinators. Other
Federal partners, such as the National Institutes of Health,
the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Energy work with CBP-supported scientists on a range of Figure 11: Science supported by the Contaminant
issues, including research to discern the actual and Biology Program showed that trout in streams
degraded by acidic runoff and metals from
perceived health risks related to contaminants and abandoned mines and natural sources will shift
pathogens in drinking water and food. their diets from aquatic insects such as mayflies,
caddisflies, and stoneflies, to terrestrial insects such
as beetles and wasps. These results inform land
The Contaminant Biology Program has a strong network stewardship decisions supporting sporting and
of partners among state natural resource, agriculture, and recreation in these watersheds, by demonstrating
the importance of restoring riparian habitat
public health agencies, along with local governments. favorable for terrestrial insects. Source: Peter
These entities are often Contaminant Biology Program Leipzig-Scott, USGS.
partners on science regarding: the health of fish in the
states within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.; the health of sturgeon in the Missouri river; and science to support
the safe and effective use of chemicals for natural resource and agricultural purposes, such as fire
suppressants in national forests and Western state parks, and invasive carp control in Illinois. Through
these and many other partnerships, the Contaminant Biology Program, in close collaboration with the
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, is able to leverage cross-organizational efficiencies and expertise
to address some of the most pressing environmental health challenges of the 21st century.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-20 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Environmental Health
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
Environmental Health $94,511 $94,331 $1,221 $1,477 -$5,519 $91,510 -$2,821
FTE 524 524 0 0 -24 500 -24
Environmental
Health $21,445 $21,404 $287 $0 -$4,585 $17,106 -$4,298
FTE 117 117 0 0 0 86 -31
Toxic Substances
$11,248 $11,226 $148 $0 -$2,498 $8,876 -$2,350
Hydrology Program
FTE 60 60 0 0 -15 45 -15

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (TSHP) is $8,876,000 and 45
FTE, a program change of -$2,498,000 and -15 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution
(CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $148,000.

Overview

Environmental Health is comprised of the Contaminant Biology Program (CBP) and the Toxic
Substances Hydrology Program (TSHP). Working in close collaboration, both programs provide the
science needed to safeguard the Nation's health, economy, and resources by helping understand and
minimize exposures to toxicological and infectious disease agents in the environment. The objective,
non-regulatory research produced by both CBP and TSHP is used by many Federal partners to support
sound decision making while protecting American heritage in fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation.

The USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program develops and applies advanced analytical methods,
field investigations, laboratory studies, and modeling capabilities to understand the sources, movement,
and exposure pathways of chemical and microbial hazards in the environment. Industrial, agricultural,
mining, and other human activities, as well as disasters such as hurricanes, can significantly affect
contaminant and pathogen exposures to humans and other organisms by the introduction or mobilization
of contaminants such as synthetic chemicals (e.g., pesticides and pharmaceuticals), naturally-occurring
elements (e.g., arsenic or uranium), and microbes (e.g., viruses and bacteria) in ways that may not be
immediately apparent. Exposure to contaminants and pathogens in surface water, groundwater, soil,
sediment, and the atmosphere can have both short- and long-term health and economic impacts. TSHP

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-21
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

research provides the science needed to develop balanced policies and practices that identify and
minimize potential exposures to contaminants and pathogens and incorporate the most cost-effective
cleanup and waste-disposal strategies that target only the highest priority and most important health risks.

A primary focus of the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program in 2018 will be to provide decision makers
a better understanding of the sources, movement, fate, exposure pathways, and biological effects of these
contaminants, contaminant mixtures, and pathogens. Such understanding is critical for development of
effective strategies to prevent or mitigate health impacts to humans and other organisms. As decision
makers and the public regularly contend with
complex concerns about possible health impacts,
the impartial and rigorous science conducted by the
CBP and the TSHP is critical for distinguishing
between actual versus perceived health risks.

Examples of the topics that will be studied by the
Toxic Substances Hydrology Program in 2018
include:
 Characterization of contaminants and
pathogens in tap water, and their
implications for human health.
 Detection and quantification of harmful
algal toxins, their sources, and implications
for the health of humans, pets, fish, and
wildlife.
 Description of the actual, as opposed to
perceived, implications of organic and
inorganic byproducts from energy resource
development on the health of humans and
other organisms.
 Understanding and helping mitigate Figure 12: Science funded by the Toxic Substances
potential health effects from exposures of Hydrology Program to collect data on contaminants and
humans, pets, fish, and wildlife to pathogens in drinking water is needed by human-health
researchers and others to understand actual versus
contaminants and pathogens produced by perceived health risks related to the sources, treatment,
disasters. and distribution infrastructure associated with private
and public drinking water. Source: Barb Sturner,
 Understanding and helping mitigate Federal Emergency Management Agency.
potential health effects from environmental
exposures of humans, fish, and wildlife to compounds associated with vector-borne disease agent
control, agricultural pest control, agricultural productivity enhancement, and resource
management (e.g., fire retardants, dust control agents, and compounds used to kill invasive
species).

U.S. Geological Survey
H-22 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Figure 13: Science supported by the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and the USGS Water Resources Mission
Area show that algal toxins are present in streams, lakes, and estuaries all over the Nation. These results inform
decisions by land and water stewards in support of recreation, sporting, and public health. Source: USGS.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Radioactive Waste Disposal Science in Support of Energy and Land and Water
Stewardship (-$700,000/-5 FTE): This eliminates a project that informs decision makers, land
managers, and landowners about the safe disposal of low-level radioactive waste on both private and
public lands in arid environments, by showing the likelihood of radioactivity moving offsite, how far it
may move, and how long it takes to get there.

Eliminate Municipal Wastewater Science to Support Land and Water Stewardship and
Infrastructure (-$100,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates a project providing science to help manage the safe
disposal of wastewater in municipalities across the Nation and in areas such as coasts and National Parks.
This non-regulatory science is used by States, municipalities, wastewater treatment facilities, and other
stakeholders to understand the health implications of pathogens, nutrients, and chemicals in water bodies
affected by municipal wastewaters and sewage. This will result in the loss of information available to
decision makers about wastewater infrastructure in areas where water is reused, or where discharges and
leakages occur from wastewater treatment facilities. Remaining funds will be used to close existing
research sites.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-23
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

Eliminate Contaminant Science in Support of Water and Land Stewardship, Energy, and
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure (-$1,550,000/-9 FTE): This reduction would mean a
loss of specialized expertise needed by both ongoing and new USGS studies that provide non-regulatory,
non-advocacy science to understand and address health hazards posed by environmental contaminants in
tap waters, recreational waters, and fisheries (for example, harmful algal toxins, lead, arsenic,
perfluorinated compounds, and other contaminants of emerging concern). Such information is utilized by
policymakers at all levels, the private sector, and other stakeholders to understand actual versus perceived
risks to health posed by environmental contaminants, and to develop appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible policies and strategies to reduce exposures to environmental contaminants.

Reduce Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program
Operations (-$148,000/-0 FTE):
This reduces the TSHP’s ability
to execute its core activities,
including conducting science
regarding exposures to
toxicological and infectious
disease agents in the
environment that is needed to
make decisions of critical
importance to the Nation, such as
decisions related to resource
development, disaster response,
and infrastructure, and including
equipment, services, and work
with partners.

Science Collaboration

The Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program coordinates with a
number of partner organizations
in conducting its work, including
Federal, State, and local
agencies, as well as academia
and non-governmental Figure 14: Recent field sampling supported by the Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program shows that chemical contaminants which had been
organizations. On matters of previously detected in a small creek close to a wastewater injection facility
human health, the TSHP were not detected further downstream where the waters are used for
recreation and drinking water purposes. Such underground injection of
collaborates with health experts wastewaters associated with energy development activities like hydraulic
from other Federal, State, local, fracturing is a common way to dispose of liquid by-products of the energy
Tribal, academic, and other industry. Source: Denise M. Akob, USGS.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-24 2018 Budget Justification
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

entities, such as the Department of Interior Office of Occupational Safety and Health, the National Park
Service Office of Public Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National
Cancer Institute, State and local health public health departments, Harvard School of Public Health, Mt.
Sinai School of Public Health, National Jewish Health Center, and many others.

The TSHP collaborates on harmful algal blooms and toxins with the USGS Ecosystems and Water
Mission Areas, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
Cyanobacteria Assessment Network (CyAN), a multi-agency project working to develop a satellite-based
early warning system to detect algal blooms in fresh waters of the United States. The TSHP and the
USGS National Water Quality Program (NWQP) recently collaborated with the EPA, States, and Tribes
to complete the largest survey of cyanotoxins and potential harmful algal bloom recreational risks in more
than 1,000 U.S. lakes and reservoirs. The study found that algal toxins were present in 32 percent of the
Nation’s lakes and reservoirs nationally, reinforcing the widespread need for heightened monitoring and
awareness to minimize exposures to algal toxins and protect public health. The TSHP and NWQP also
worked with State partners to identify cyanotoxins and microcystins in 39 percent of wadeable streams
measured in the Southeastern United States, a previously overlooked source of algal toxin exposures to
humans and ecosystems.

On fish and wildlife health research, such as health impacts on fish from exposures to contaminants and
pathogens in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program works with
organizations such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the EPA. Through these and
many other partnerships, the TSHP, in close collaboration with the USGS Contaminant Biology Program,
is able to leverage cross-organizational efficiencies and expertise to address some of the most pressing
environmental health challenges of the 21st century.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification H-25
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
H-26 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
The USGS protects life, health, and
property by effectively delivering
natural hazards science.

Earthquake-triggered landslide, Haiti

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Earthquake Hazards
Program $60,503 $60,388 $561 $0 -$9,561 $51,388 -$9,000
FTE 232 232 0 0 -12 220 -12
Volcano Hazards
Program $26,121 $26,071 $343 $0 -$3,982 $22,432 -$3,639
FTE 142 142 0 0 -7 135 -7
Landslide Hazards
Program $3,538 $3,531 $53 $0 -$53 $3,531 $0
FTE 22 22 0 0 0 22 0
Global Seismographic
Network $6,453 $6,441 $29 $0 -$1,484 $4,986 -$1,455
FTE 12 12 0 0 -2 10 -2
Geomagnetism
Program $1,888 $1,884 $0 $0 -$1,884 $0 -$1,884
FTE 15 15 0 0 -15 0 -15
Coastal/Marine
Hazards and Resources
Program $40,510 $40,433 $493 $0 -$5,152 $35,774 -$4,659
FTE 204 204 0 0 -16 188 -16

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-1
Natural Hazards

Summary of Program Changes

Fixed
Request Component
($000's) FTE Costs Page
Earthquake Hazards Program -9,561 -12 +561 I--9
Eliminate implementation of Earthquake Early Warning System for the
West Coast -8,200 -10 I--10
Reduce Support for Regional Earthquake Monitoring, Assessments and
Research -800 -2 I--10
Reduce Earthquake Hazards Operations -561 0 I--10
Volcano Hazards Program -3,982 -7 +343 I--13
Suspend Implementation of NVEWS -1,500 -2 I--14
Reduce Volcano Hazard Assessments -1,639 -3 I--14
Suspend Maintenance of Monitoring Networks and Data Analysis at
Yellowstone and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands -500 -2 I--14
Reduce Volcano Hazards Operations -343 0 I--15
Landslide Hazards Program -53 0 +53 I--17
Reduce Landslide Hazards Operations -53 0 I--18
Global Seismographic Network -1,484 -2 +29 I--21
Suspend implementation of GSN seismic station upgrades -1,455 -2 I--22
Reduce Global Seismographic Network Operations -29 0 I--22
Geomagnetism Program -1,884 -15 0 I--23
Eliminate the Geomagnetism Program -1,884 -15 I--24
Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program -5,152 -16 +493 I--25
Eliminate Marine Habitat/Resource Mapping and Ocean and Glacier
Studies to Inform Resource Management -1,600 -6 I--26
Eliminate Elevation Model Development and Regional Coastal Resource
Assessments -2,500 -7 I--26
Reduce Support for Regional Coastal Management, Restoration, and Risk
Reduction -559 -3 I--27
Reduce Coastal-Marine Hazards and Resources Program Operations -493 0 I--27
Total Program Change -22,116 -52 +1,479

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Natural Hazards Mission Area is $118,111,000 and 575 FTE, a program
change of -$22,116,000 and -52 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $1,479,000.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-2 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Overview
The Natural Hazards Activity is comprised of six subactivities:
• Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP; http://earthquake.usgs.gov)
• Volcano Hazards Program (VHP; http://volcanoes.usgs.gov)
• Landslides Hazards Program (LHP; http://landslides.usgs.gov)
• Global Seismographic Network (GSN; http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/gsn)
• Geomagnetism Program (http://geomag.usgs.gov)
• Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program (CMHRP; http://marine.usgs.gov)

USGS hazard science helps protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation by:
● Effectively delivering hazard assessments and issuing warnings and advisories for earthquakes,
landslides, volcanic eruptions, and coastal erosion.
● Informing warnings and advisories, and hazard assessments issued by others for floods, magnetic
storms, tsunamis, and wildfires.
● Providing timely and accurate information to emergency managers and response officials, the
media and the public.
● Informing and educating at-risk or impacted communities during crises and to anticipate and
prepare for future hazard events.

To achieve its primary mission, and to fulfill its responsibilities for loss and risk reduction, the USGS
Natural Hazards Mission Area (NHMA) develops, delivers, and applies several interlocking components
of hazard science: observations and targeted research underpin assessments, forecasts, warnings, and
crisis and disaster response. The research, data, products, and detailed information that the USGS
provides enables Federal, State, tribal, local, and private-sector end-users to better understand, anticipate
and reduce their risks associated with natural, technological, and environmental hazards, and enables
science-based decisions that effectively enhance resilience and reduce impacts from those threats.

The USGS NHMA has set goals and identified strategic actions that will lead to more accurate, higher
resolution, and timely assessments and warnings. Effective and more accurate assessments and warnings
provide opportunity for improved planning, preparedness and response decisions, and reduce hazard
vulnerability and losses. The programs of the NHMA provide situational awareness products and
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-3
Natural Hazards

targeted scientific information to emergency responders, policymakers and the public to reduce natural
hazard risks and losses, and increase community resilience. In order to successfully accomplish these risk
reduction strategic objectives, the NHMA maintains a breadth of scientists, facilities, and information
technology systems to aid scientific research and information sharing and product delivery and
publication. In addition, strong communication, collaboration, and cooperation are required among a
number of Federal and State agencies for the success of the USGS natural hazards programs. Federal
partner agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and several Interior bureaus including the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

The 2018 budget request allows the USGS to focus NHMA activities on its core mission of natural hazard
monitoring, assessments, research and coastal resource studies. While preserving critical mission
activities (see Strategic Actions for 2018 below), the request also includes several proposed terminations
and reductions. Activities to be terminated or suspended include:
● Development of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system for the west coast.
● Maintenance of monitoring networks in Yellowstone and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
● Implementation of the National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS).
● Seismic station upgrades to the Global Seismographic Network (GSN).
● Geomagnetic monitoring, hazard assessment and research in support of the National Space
Weather Program.
● Marine habitat mapping, ocean studies to inform resource management, delivery of regional
offshore/onshore elevation models, coastal resource vulnerability assessments.
● Support for regional coastal management, restoration, and risk reduction.

Activities to be reduced include: volcano monitoring in the Yellowstone National Park region; volcano
hazards assessments (used to inform volcano monitoring and decisions on managing risks from
eruptions); and regional earthquake monitoring, hazard assessments, and research in the lower risk
regions of Alaska and the Central and Eastern United States. Details for these terminations, suspensions
and reductions are provided in the following program sections.

Program Performance

In 2016, 92 percent of the performance measures of the USGS natural hazard programs met or exceeded
their targets. Specifically, the Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) increased work on induced seismicity
and analyzed data from new, low-cost seismic instrumentation; the Volcano Hazards Program (VHP)
purchased and installed new monitoring equipment; the Landslide Hazards Program (LHP) increased
work on post-fire debris flows delivering hazard assessments for 29 wildfires; the Geomagnetism
Program improved observatory equipment, which resulted in an increase of reliable data being collected;
and the Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program (CMHRP) had continued success in their

U.S. Geological Survey
I-4 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

research data being cited in a significant number of coastal and ocean studies. This level of performance
indicates that critical natural hazard knowledge and tools were being developed and provided to land
managers and policymakers to inform decision making.

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

The Earthquake Hazards Program will:
• Monitor the Nation's earthquakes via the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) and,
through support of several regional seismic networks operated by State and university partners,
provide 24x7 reporting on domestic and global earthquakes; deliver rapid earthquake impact and
situational awareness products to support emergency response; and develop improved methods
for continued improvement in the quality and timeliness of real-time earthquake information.
• Deliver real-time earthquake data to NOAA, supporting tsunami monitoring in the Pacific Rim
and disaster alerting in Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, California, and U.S. Territories in the
Western Pacific and Caribbean.
• Continue to improve the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model, which describes the likelihood
and potential impacts of earthquakes nationwide and serves as the basis of seismic provisions in
building codes; deliver a draft model update to the Building Seismic Safety Council, which
develops building code updates; and maintain associated databases and tools that are widely used
by engineers for site-specific engineering design and seismic risk analysis.
• Conduct applied field, laboratory, and theoretical research on the causes, characteristic, and
effects of earthquakes, including investigations of earthquakes related to wastewater disposal and
other industrial activities; and will support relevant research by expert partners in academia, State
agencies, and the private sector via competitive grants and cooperative agreements.
• Communicate earthquake information to the public and to key stakeholders, including Federal
and State emergency response agencies, disaster relief organizations, operators of utilities and
lifelines, and communities at risk.

The Volcano Hazards Program will:
• Monitor the Nation’s volcanoes to issue alerts and information in real-time about eruptive activity
to the public and key partners, such as other Federal agencies and state and local emergency
management officials to support decisions about evacuation, aircraft diversion for volcanic ash,
and other related health and safety impacts.
• Work closely with partners to communicate information about volcano hazards and improve
awareness and preparedness activities for the public and other key stakeholders.
• Conduct laboratory-based studies of volcanic processes that will inform volcano monitoring
strategies and the generation of updated volcanic hazard assessments.
• Revise the national assessment of volcano threat levels with the availability of new data generated
since the 2005 national assessment.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-5
Natural Hazards

• Leverage USGS leadership of the 3DEP initiative and partner with other Federal and State
agencies to acquire high-resolution light distance and ranging (lidar) data over Very-High-Threat
and High-Threat volcanoes.

The Landslide Hazards Program will:
• Conduct field, laboratory, and modeling studies of landslide initiation and mobility processes in
cooperation with Federal, State, academic, and private sector partners to develop, test, and
advance tools and methods for landslide monitoring, hazard assessment, and forecasting.
• Provide post-wildfire debris-flow hazard assessments for major wildfires to post-fire response
teams; State geological surveys; Federal, State, and local emergency management; and the public.
• Collect observations, conduct studies, and test methods and models to expand the NOAA-USGS
partnership for post-wildfire debris-flow early warning beyond the prototype area in southern
California to other parts of the western United States. The LHP will also continue to collect
observations and conduct studies to expand debris-flow early warning to non-burned landscapes
in select high-risk areas of the Nation.

• Test and deploy a system for near-real-time hazard assessment to support Federal, State, and local
response to major landslide crises.

The Global Seismographic Network will:
• Focus on its core priority of operating the existing network in its current state to provide seismic
data needed for earthquake alerts and situational awareness products, tsunami warnings, national
security, hazard assessments, and research.
• Continue to develop the Data Quality Analyzer (DQA) software in order to expand its use in
monitoring and improving the data quality from the existing instrumentation. The DQA will
refine its automated tracking of data quality metrics and will be combining different metrics to
help diagnose station problems.

The Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program will:
• Conduct marine geological and geophysical investigations to provide Federal, State, and local
users with improved assessments of hazard sources (earthquakes, tsunami, submarine landslides)
and their potential impacts on offshore operations, coastal communities and infrastructure.
• Continue field and laboratory studies with other Federal and academic partners to characterize
marine methane systems and associated seabed processes to enhance understanding of their
energy resource potential, the risk they represent to offshore operations and their role in the
global carbon system and marine ecological productivity.
• Contribute analyses and expertise to delineate the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf consistent
with international law and will apply unique USGS expertise to understanding the occurrence and
potential of deep-sea mineral resources.
• Provide regional real-time forecasts of erosion and inundation due to coastal storms, including

U.S. Geological Survey
I-6 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

hurricanes, and long-term forecasts of the likelihood of future coastal change and inundation due
to storms, erosion, and sea-level rise.
• For priority coastal locations, develop and deliver data and knowledge on physical setting and
processes that informs local, State, and Federal coastal management, planning, and public safety
efforts to design and assess strategies for regional restoration, risk reduction, and coastal
management.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-7
Natural Hazards

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-8 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
Earthquake Hazards Program

2016 2017 2018
Change from
Internal
CR Fixed Program 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Earthquake
Hazards Program $60,503 $60,388 $561 $0 -$9,561 $51,388 -$9,000
FTE 232 232 0 0 -12 220 -12

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Earthquake Hazards Program is $51,388,000 and 220 FTE, a program
change of -$9,561,000 and -12 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $561,000.

Overview

The USGS provides the scientific information and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and
economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction.
The USGS is the only U.S. agency that routinely and continuously reports on current domestic and
worldwide earthquake activity. Through the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), the USGS and
its State and university partners monitor and report on earthquakes nationwide. The USGS National
Seismic Hazard Maps form the basis for seismic provisions in the Nation’s building codes.

The Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) is the applied Earth science component of the four-Agency
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP, reauthorized by the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Authorization Act of 2004, P.L. 108–360). Through NEHRP, the USGS partners with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to reduce earthquake losses in the United States.

Nearly half of the U.S. population is at risk from earthquakes, and annualized earthquake losses in the
United States are estimated at $6.1 billion. To effect loss reduction, the EHP supports a highly
coordinated set of monitoring, hazards assessment, research, and risk translation and communication
activities in at-risk regions nationwide, including the west coast, the Intermountain West, the Central and

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-9
Natural Hazards

Eastern United States, and Alaska. This work enlists the talents and expertise of the academic
community, State governments, and the private sector via competitive grants and cooperative agreements.
The 2018 budget request allows the EHP to focus on the core priorities for earthquake loss reduction,
which include:
• 24x7 reporting on domestic and global earthquakes.
• Delivery of earthquake impact and situational awareness products to emergency response
officials.
• Maintenance of national and regional seismic hazard maps, associated databases and tools.
• Reducing uncertainties in assessments of earthquake occurrence and ground motion.
• Assessing the risks from earthquakes and tsunamis to the Nation’s critical infrastructure.
• Communication of earthquake information to the public and to key stakeholders, including
Federal and State emergency response agencies and disaster relief organizations.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Implementation of Earthquake Early Warning System for the West Coast
(-$8,200,000/-10 FTE): This elimination would end USGS efforts to implement the ShakeAlert
earthquake early warning system, suspending internal efforts and eliminating external funding to partners
(California Institute of Technology, Central Washington University, University of California at Berkeley,
University of Nevada at Reno, University of Oregon, and the University of Washington).

Reduce Support for Regional Earthquake Monitoring, Assessments and Research (-$800,000/-2
FTE): This reduces support for regional earthquake monitoring, hazard assessment, and research in areas
of moderate seismic risk, specifically Alaska and the Central and Eastern United States. This would also
reduce grants supporting targeted research by academic, State, and private sector partners, which may
slow the rate of updates to seismic provisions in building codes and provide less science to support risk
mitigation actions. The USGS would also suspend its annual forecast of hazard related to both natural
and induced seismicity.

Reduce Earthquake Hazards Operations (-$561,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish the
EHP’s ability to execute its core activities including monitoring and reporting on earthquakes, assessing
earthquake hazards, as well as delivery of earthquake products to emergency responders,
including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

Through NEHRP, the USGS partners with FEMA, NSF, and NIST to reduce earthquake losses in the
United States. For example, the USGS partners with FEMA in the development and updating of building
codes, based on USGS earthquake hazard science. The USGS ShakeMap product, which provides rapid
situational awareness of earthquake ground motions, is sent directly to numerous businesses, utilities,

U.S. Geological Survey
I-10 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

lifeline operators, response officials, and State and local government agencies, and is imported directly
into FEMA’s HAZUS software for detailed estimation of earthquake impacts.

The USGS also participates in FEMA-led national-level earthquake disaster response exercises, in which
the USGS contributes directly to two of the Emergency Support Functions within the National Response
Framework. Data from USGS-managed seismometers flow directly into the two Tsunami Warning
Centers operated by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the warning centers use those
data to quickly estimate the magnitude, location and depth of large earthquakes, and to send rapid tsunami
warnings.

The EHP and NSF’s Geoscience Directorate jointly fund national and global seismic and geodetic
monitoring. The USGS and NSF also jointly support the Southern California Earthquake Center, a highly
leveraged research consortium, which is making significant advances in the fields of seismic hazards
assessment, seismic-resistant engineering, earthquake forecasting, public risk communication,
paleoseismology, and modeling of earthquake ground motions via high-performance computing.

Monitoring data from seismic networks supported by EHP’s ANSS, as well as EHP supported geodetic
networks, are publically available and used by many NSF-supported research projects. In a
complementary way, the NSF supports the ANSS by providing data archiving and distribution through
the IRIS Data Management System (see www.iris.edu).

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-11
Natural Hazards

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-12 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
Volcano Hazards Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Volcano Hazards
Program $26,121 $26,071 $343 $0 -$3,982 $22,432 -$3,639
FTE 142 142 0 0 -7 135 -7

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Volcano Hazards Program is $22,432,000 and 135 FTE, a program
change of -$3,982,000, and -7 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $343,000.

Overview

Volcanic eruptions are among the most destructive phenomena of nature, and even small events can have
a significant social and economic impact. Unlike many other natural disasters, however, volcanic
eruptions can be predicted well in advance of their occurrence if adequate in-ground instrumentation is in
place that allows earliest detection of unrest providing the time needed to mitigate the worst of their
effects.

Despite these successes, the Nation’s existing volcano monitoring infrastructure cannot provide warning
of eruptions from all volcanos that threaten lives and property. Many volcanoes, including some of the
most threatening, lack the instrumentation necessary for effective forecasting and have had only
rudimentary geologic study. The VHP has evaluated all of the Nation’s volcanoes to determine the
monitoring commensurate with the threat they pose. This national threat level assessment was conducted
in 2005 and is being updated. The USGS and affiliated partners used this threat assessment to design a
national-scale plan, the National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS), to detect unrest at the
earliest stages using in-ground monitoring instrumentation deployed on the Nation’s most threatening
volcanoes.

The VHP is built around a structure of five volcano observatories that divide the Nation’s volcanoes into
distinct areas of responsibility:
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-13
Natural Hazards

• Hawaiian Volcano Observatory– Hawaii
• Cascades Volcano Observatory – Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
• Alaska Volcano Observatory– Alaska and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
• California Volcano Observatory– California and Nevada
• Yellowstone Volcano Observatory– Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming

Under the NVEWS model, the observatories retain considerable independence, recognizing the
importance of local knowledge and close ties with local officials and emergency managers. NVEWS also
places great value on the interoperability among the observatories, ensuring that they all use a common
set of tools and standards. Each observatory is responsible for volcano monitoring, community
preparedness including development and regular practice of volcano hazard emergency response plans,
managing volcanic crises, and coordinating research in their areas of responsibility.

The 2018 budget request focuses on core capabilities to provide forecasts and warnings of hazardous
volcanic activity at volcanoes in the United States with the current monitoring networks; to provide
forecasts and warnings and situational awareness of hazardous volcanic activity at five very-high-threat
volcanoes in Alaska and all very-high-threat (VHT) and high-threat (HT) volcanoes in the contiguous
United States, and to produce updated volcanic hazard assessments for VHT and HT volcanoes in the
contiguous United States.

2018 Program Changes

Suspend Implementation of NVEWS (-$1,500,000/-2 FTE): This suspends implementation of the
National Volcano Early Warning System, including installations to close monitoring gaps on Very-High-
Threat volcanoes in the contiguous United States and upgrade analog monitoring stations in Alaska to
comply with National Telecommunications and Information Administration spectrum allocation
restrictions, and developing a next generation lahar detection system for Mt. Rainier, Washington.

Reduce Volcano Hazard Assessments (-$1,639,000/-3 FTE): This reduces the pace of hazard
assessments at High- and Very-High-Threat volcanoes. The reduction would also reduce efforts to
develop volcano hazard assessments used to inform monitoring and decisions on managing risks from
eruptions, narrowing the focus of assessments to understanding volcanic systems and technologies for
future monitoring and widespread instrument deployment.

Suspend Maintenance of Monitoring Networks and Data Analysis at Yellowstone and
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (-$500,000/-2 FTE): This suspends maintenance of
USGS monitoring networks which will diminish monitoring of the Yellowstone volcanic region,
including real-time temperature monitoring of stream and hydrothermal pools, resulting in significantly
reduced awareness of changes within a large caldera system where ground deformation and hydrothermal
explosions are commonplace. This reduction would also suspend maintenance of monitoring networks on
three active volcanoes in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-14 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Reduce Volcano Hazards Operations (-$343,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish the VHP’s
ability to execute its core activities to provide forecasts and warnings of hazardous volcanic activity at
volcanoes in the United States with the current monitoring networks; to provide forecasts and warnings
and situational awareness of hazardous volcanic activity; and to produce updated volcanic hazard
assessments, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

Collaboration with National Science Foundation – The USGS is a major participant in the NSF’s
GeoPRISMS Program, which has targeted studies of the geology and geophysics of continental margins,
focusing on the Cascadia and the Alaskan-Aleutian subduction zones. VHP scientists worked closely
with their academic partners to obtain NSF funding for a GeoPRISMS project for a “slab-to-surface”
geophysical and geochemical imaging effort at Mount St. Helens. The VHP leveraged scientific expertise
and logistics experience for GeoPRISMS ship and aircraft resources on three research cruises to the
Alaskan subduction margin in the 2015 summer field season, enabling much needed network repair and
restoration in the Central and Western Aleutians and gas emission measurements at several Aleutian
volcanoes. As a result, AVO can once again reliably track volcanic unrest at these volcanoes and issue
warnings of hazardous eruptive activity.

The USGS participated in a NSF-funded workshop in September 2014 that sought to address the
upcoming end of the Earthscope initiative in 2018. EarthScope is a program of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) that has deployed thousands of seismic, GPS, and other geophysical instruments to
study the structure and evolution of the North American continent and the processes that cause
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The VHP and other parts of the USGS depend on hundreds of
instruments deployed as part of Earthscope and their disappearance would represent a major step
backward for monitoring capabilities at many U.S. volcanoes. Moreover, some of these instruments are
unique (e.g., borehole seismometers at Mount St. Helens) and provide very high quality data that the
USGS depends on for comprehensive monitoring. Discussions with NSF and other stakeholders in
Earthscope instrumentation continued in 2015, and will likely continue in 2017, with the goal of keeping
these instruments functional past a 2018-planned sunset date.

Collaboration with other Federal Agencies – The VHP works closely with other Federal agencies
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the NSF, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Department of Energy, and DOD. In most cases, the information transfer is two way; the VHP
provides interpretive products about volcanic activity to these agencies, while also receiving from them
an abundance of data useful for volcano monitoring and ash fall forecasts and ash cloud tracking.
Interagency cooperation of this sort is critical to success of the VHP mission and the mission of the other
agency programs. The VHP emphasizes both external partnerships and the need for data from a wide
variety of instrument types.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-15
Natural Hazards

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-16 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
Landslide Hazards Program

2016 2017 2018

Internal Change from
CR Fixed Program
Base Transfer Request 2017
Annualized Costs Changes
Costs Annualized CR

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Landslide Hazards
Program $3,538 $3,531 $53 $0 -$53 $3,531 $0
FTE 22 22 0 0 0 22 0

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget bequest for the Landslide Hazards Program is $3,531,000 and 22 FTE, a program
change of -$53,000 and 0 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $53,000.

Overview

Landslides occur in all 50 States and around the world in mountainous and hilly areas. Where landslides
impact human activities, lives may be lost and property and infrastructure damaged. A recent, tragic
example is the March 2014 landslide near Oso, WA, which killed 43 people, destroyed 40 homes, and
buried a mile of State Highway 530. Landslides triggered by earthquakes or heavy rainfall can also
impact broad regions. For example, landslides triggered by heavy rainfall over an area of 1,300 square
miles in the northern Colorado Front Range in early September 2013, resulted in three fatalities and
damaged property and infrastructure throughout the region. The Landslide Hazards Program (LHP) is the
only Federal program dedicated to landslide science and conducts targeted studies to understand landslide
initiation and mobility processes. This understanding is used to develop methods and models for
landslide hazard assessment, develop and deploy systems to monitor threatening landslides, and to
develop methods and tools for landslide early warning and situational awareness. Program activities are
targeted toward the types of landslides that result in human and economic losses in the United States,
such as those with long travel distances, those initiated by heavy rainfall, and those exacerbated by the
effects of wildfire.

USGS scientists respond to landslide emergencies and disasters nationwide. Federal, State, and local
agencies are assisted through landslide site evaluations and are provided strategies for reducing ongoing
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-17
Natural Hazards

and future impacts from landslides. USGS expertise is also called upon when landslide disasters occur
abroad. The USGS works with the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance to respond to appeals for technical assistance from affected countries.

The USGS deploys near-real-time monitoring systems at active landslide sites to gather continuous
movement, rainfall, soil-moisture, and pore-pressure data needed to understand the mechanisms of
landslide occurrence and mobility and forecast future behavior. Such data and understanding form the
scientific underpinnings for early warning of conditions that may trigger landslides. For example, the
LHP works in conjunction with the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to issue advisories regarding the potential for debris-flows (potentially
deadly and destructive, fast-moving landslides) in areas of southern California recently burned by
wildfire. Data needed to extend these methods to other parts of the United States are being collected.

Consistent with the Interior goal to protect lives, resources, and property by providing information to
assist communities in managing risks from natural hazards, the LHP provides timely information to the
public about current emergency responses and provides data and information to the external user-
community through the program Web site, social media, fact sheets, reports, and press releases.

The 2018 budget request allows the LHP to focus on its core priorities for landslide loss reduction. These
priorities include: providing debris-flow hazard assessments and early warning for areas recently burned
by wildfire to support Interior and U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) post-fire response teams, the NWS, and
emergency management; operating systems and conducting investigations to support expansion of
landslide alerts to selected non-burned areas; maintaining capability to respond to major landslide crises
to support Federal, State, and local emergency management; and continuing to develop and improve
methods for landslide hazard assessment and situational awareness in cooperation with state geological
surveys, academic partners, and the private sector.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Landslide Hazards Operations (-$53,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish the LHP’s
ability to execute its core activities for landslide loss reduction including: providing debris-flow hazard
assessments and early warning for areas recently burned by wildfire; supporting expansion of landslide
alerts to selected non-burned areas; maintaining capability to respond to major landslide crises; and
continuing to develop and improve methods for landslide hazard assessment and situational awareness,
including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The LHP collaborates with a broad range of international, Federal, State, public, private, and academic
partners to understand and address landslide hazards. As the only U.S. Federal agency devoted to
landslide science, the LHP often takes the lead in definition of scientific agenda and lines of inquiry.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-18 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – The LHP collaborates with the NWS to
operationally deliver debris-flow early warning for recently burned areas in southern California. The
LHP also coordinates with the NWS to provide debris-flow information during large storms in other parts
of the Nation. The LHP role in the collaboration is to develop criteria and other information that is used
by the NWS to provide debris-flow information as part of other (typically flood) NWS products.

Interior and other public land management agencies – The LHP collaborates with public land
management agencies to address landslide hazards on public lands. The LHP operationally produces
post-wildfire debris-flow hazard assessments for major fires to support Interior, USFS, California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and other post-fire response teams. The LHP role in these
assessments is data collection, model development, and product delivery. Collaborators provide input and
verification data. For specific landslide hazard issues where other agencies have relevant expertise, such
as the Yosemite National Park rockfall risk assessment, the LHP cooperates closely with partners on data
collection, analysis, and product preparation and publication.

State geological surveys – The LHP collaborates with State geological surveys to address landslide
hazards in a number of States. Typically, the LHP provide tools, methods, instrumentation, and data for
landslide hazard assessment or study. State geological surveys typically collect data, conduct analyses,
and interface with other State agencies and emergency management to implement results. For example,
the LHP is working with State surveys in Washington State and California to collect rainfall and geologic
data to verify and improve post-fire debris-flow hazard assessments in recently burned areas in those
States.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-19
Natural Hazards

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-20 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
Global Seismographic Network

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Global Seismographic
Network $6,453 $6,441 $29 $0 -$1,484 $4,986 -$1,455
FTE 12 12 0 0 -2 10 -2

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Global Seismographic Network Program is $4,986,000 and 10 FTE, a
program change of -$1,484,000 and -2 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level.
This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $29,000.

Overview

The Global Seismographic Network (GSN), consisting of more than 150 globally distributed stations, is
designed to provide high-quality seismic data needed for earthquake alerts and situational awareness
products, tsunami warnings, national security (through nuclear test treaty monitoring and research),
seismic hazard assessments and earthquake loss reduction, as well as research on earthquake sources and
the structure and dynamics of the Earth.

Because of its real-time data delivery, the GSN is a critical element of USGS hazard alerting activities, as
well as supporting activities of other Federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) tsunami warning; National Science Foundation (NSF) basic research; and the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) nuclear test treaty monitoring and
research. GSN stations transmit real-time data continuously to the USGS National Earthquake
Information Center in Golden, CO, where they are used to rapidly determine the locations, depths,
magnitudes, and other parameters of earthquakes worldwide, in conjunction with data from other
networks. GSN data allows for the rapid determination of the location and orientation of the fault that
caused the earthquake, and provides an estimate of the length of the fault that ruptured during the
earthquake, which are essential for modeling earthquake effects. An additional important aspect of GSN
activities is evaluating, developing, and advancing new technologies for seismic instrumentation, sensor
installation, and seismic data acquisition and management.
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-21
Natural Hazards

In 2012, Congress provided $5.7 million to the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) to
purchase replacement equipment for aging and degrading GSN sensors. The NNSA transferred most of
those funds to the USGS for the development and purchase of new borehole seismic sensors and delivery
of the new sensors began in 2017. The NNSA funds were specified for procurement of new GSN sensors,
rather than installation or site improvements. In addition to the nearly one-third of the GSN seismic
station sites needing new sensors, one-fourth of the sites also need vault repairs to improve data quality.

2018 Program Changes

Suspend implementation of GSN seismic station upgrades. (-$1,455,000/-2 FTE): This reduction
would suspend the deployment of 15 to 20 sensors procured by the Department of Energy, National
Nuclear Security Administration to improve the GSN infrastructure by replacing aged and degraded
sensors.

Reduce Global Seismographic Network Operations (-$29,000/-0 FTE): This reduction would diminish
the GSN’s ability to execute its core activities including operating the existing network to provide seismic
data needed for earthquake alerts and situational awareness products, tsunami warnings, national security,
hazard assessments and research, including equipment, services, and work with partners.

Science Collaboration

The GSN is a joint program funded by the USGS and the NSF, and is implemented by the USGS, the
Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics (IGPP) of the University of California at San Diego, and
the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS, a consortium of universities). The network
consists of more than 150 globally distributed seismic stations, installed over two decades by the USGS
and the IGPP.

GSN operation is accomplished in cooperation with international partners who, in most cases, provide
facilities to shelter the instruments and personnel to oversee the security and operation of each station.
USGS responsibilities include station maintenance and upgrades, overseeing telecommunications,
troubleshooting problems and providing major repairs, conducting routine service visits, training station
operators, providing limited financial aid in support of station operations at sites lacking a host
organization, and ensuring data quality and completeness.

Other agency programs will continue to be supported by the GSN. GSN data are available to the public
and scientists around the world via the IRIS Data Management Center (DMC). GSN data are a critical
element of the tsunami warning system operated by the NOAA National Weather Service, and are
transmitted in real time to the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers in Hawaii and Alaska. The NOAA
National Tsunami Hazard Reduction Program is also served. GSN data are used by the U.S. Air Force
and DOE nuclear test monitoring research programs. NSF projects use GSN data for basic research on
Earth structure and dynamics, seismic wave propagation, earthquake source complexity, and climate.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-22 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
Geomagnetism Program

2016 2017 2018
Internal Change
CR Fixed Program
Base Transfer Request from 2017
Annualized Costs Changes
Costs Enacted

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Geomagnetism
Program $1,888 $1,884 $0 $0 -$1,884 $0 -$1,884
FTE 15 15 0 0 -15 0 -15

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the USGS Geomagnetism Program is $0 and 0 FTE, a change of -$1,884,000
and -15 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level.

Overview

Magnetic storms are caused by the dynamic interaction of the Earth’s magnetic field with the Sun. While
magnetic storms often produce beautiful aurora lights that can be seen at high latitude, they can also
wreak havoc on the infrastructure and activities of our modern, technologically based society. Large
storms can induce voltage surges in electric-power grids, causing blackouts and the loss of radio
communication, reduce GPS accuracy, damage satellite electronics and affect satellite operations,
enhance radiation levels for astronauts and high-altitude pilots, and interfere with directional drilling for
oil and gas.

In order to understand and mitigate geomagnetic hazards, the USGS Geomagnetism Program has
monitored and analyzed the Earth’s dynamic magnetic field. The Program is part of the U.S. National
Space Weather Program (NSWP), an interagency collaboration that includes programs in the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The
Geomagnetism Program provides data to the NSWP agencies, oil drilling services companies,
geophysical surveying companies, and several international agencies. USGS data, products, and services
are also used by the electric-power industry to evaluate geomagnetic storm risk.

Domestically, the USGS works cooperatively with NOAA, the Air Force 557th Weather Wing, and other
agencies. For example, USGS observatory data are used by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center,

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-23
Natural Hazards

and by the U.S. Air Force, for issuing geomagnetic warnings and forecasts. The USGS magnetic
observatory network is part of the global INTERMAGNET network. USGS research is conducted in
collaboration with the Colorado School of Mines, the USGS Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry
Science Center, the NOAA/SWPC, and the NASA Community Coordinated Modeling Center.

The USGS also works with private entities that are affected by space weather and geomagnetic activity,
including electric-power grid companies and the oil and gas drilling industries. In the oil and gas
industry, for example, drill operators need to know which way their drill bits are going to maximize oil
production and avoid collisions with other wells. One way to accomplish this important task is to install
a magnetometer—a sort of modern-day "compass"—in a drill-string instrument package that follows the
drill bit. Simultaneous measurements of the magnetic field in the drill hole are combined with those
monitored by the USGS to produce a highly accurate estimate of the drill bit position and direction.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate the Geomagnetism Program. (-$1,884,000/-15 FTE): This eliminates the Geomagnetism
Program, an element of the U.S. National Space Weather Program. This will reduce the accuracy of
NOAA and U.S. Air Force forecasting of the magnitude and impact of geomagnetic storms. In addition
to eliminating the data provided to partner Federal agencies, the elimination of the program will also
reduce the availability of geomagnetic information to the oil drilling services industry, geophysical
surveying industry, several international agencies, and electrical transmission utilities.

Science Collaboration

The USGS is a member of the multiagency NSWP. Domestically, the USGS works cooperatively with
NOAA, the Air Force 557th Weather Wing, and other agencies. For example, USGS observatory data are
used by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, and by the U.S. Air Force, for issuing geomagnetic
warnings and forecasts. Internationally, the USGS magnetic observatory network is itself part of the
global INTERMAGNET network. USGS research is conducted in collaboration with the Colorado School
of Mines, the USGS Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center, the NOAA/SWPC, and the
NASA Community Coordinated Modeling Center.

The USGS also works with private entities that are affected by space weather and geomagnetic activity,
including electric-power grid companies and the oil and gas drilling industries. In the oil and gas
industry, for example, drill operators need to know which way their drill bits are going to maximize oil
production and avoid collisions with other wells. One way to accomplish this important task is to install a
magnetometer—a sort of modern-day "compass"—in a drill-string instrument package that follows the
drill bit. Simultaneous measurements of the magnetic field in the drill hole are combined with those
monitored by the USGS to produce a highly accurate estimate of the drill bit position and direction.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-24 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Natural Hazards
Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program

2016 2017 2018
Internal Change
CR Fixed Program
Base Transfer Request from 2017
Annualized Costs Changes
Costs Enacted

Natural Hazards $139,013 $138,748 $1,479 $0 -$22,116 $118,111 -$20,637
FTE 627 627 0 0 -52 575 -52
Coastal/Marine
Hazards and Resources
Program $40,510 $40,433 $493 $0 -$5,152 $35,774 -$4,659
FTE 204 204 0 0 -16 188 -16

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget bequest for the Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program is $35,774,000 and 188
FTE, with a program change of -$5,152,000 and -16 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing
Resolution (CR) level. This includes a fixed costs change of $493,000.

Overview

The Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program (CMHRP) provides surveys, knowledge and tools to
characterize the hazard and resource potential of the Nation’s offshore and coastal landscapes. CMHRP
data, research, and technical expertise provides managers with the information and tools to anticipate and
reduce the risk of natural hazards and coastal change, and to assess and manage marine and coastal
resources to meet current needs and to respond to changing demands. As the only Federal science
program focused on the geology and processes that form, maintain, and alter coastal and marine
landscapes CMHRP addresses a wide range of issues in locations from the shallow waters of estuaries to
the deep sea. CMHRP responds to immediate local and regional priorities across these environments,
while simultaneously addressing the needs of the Nation for comprehensive, long-term coastal and marine
science-based products on a national scale. The unique capabilities and expertise of CMHRP are applied
in support of the mission objectives of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and other Federal, state,
and local agencies; non-governmental organizations; and, ultimately, the public.

In 2018, prioritized field programs and analyses will provide Federal, State, and local users with
improved assessments of hazard sources (earthquakes, tsunami, submarine landslides) and their potential
impacts on offshore operations, coastal communities and infrastructure with an increasing focus on
support of bureau-wide investigations of subduction zone processes and hazards. The CMHRP will
continue work with other Federal and academic partners to characterize marine methane systems and
associated seabed processes to enhance understanding of their substantial energy resource potential, the
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-25
Natural Hazards

risk they represent to offshore operations and their role in the global carbon system and marine ecological
productivity. In addition, the CMHRP will contribute analyses and expertise to delineate the
U.S. Extended Continental Shelf consistent with international law, expanding U.S. sovereignty over
resources on and beneath the sea floor. Modest resources will be directed to efforts to provide unique
USGS expertise on the occurrence and potential of deep-sea mineral resources.

For the majority of contiguous U.S. ocean beaches and barrier islands CMHRP provides real-time
forecasts of erosion and inundation due to coastal storms, including hurricanes; and long-term forecasts of
the likelihood of future coastal change due to storms, erosion and sea-level rise. The CMHRP is the
recognized Federal provider of tools to anticipate and respond to physical change along our Nation’s
coast. Within the proposed 2018 budget, CMHRP will prioritize development of the data and knowledge
of physical setting and processes that enables continued, expanded and improved delivery of these tools to
local, State, and Federal coastal managers, planners, and public safety officials throughout the Nation.
Planning and implementation of this portfolio of activities is the result of cooperative partnerships with
many Federal and State agencies and local stakeholders who expect timely project completion and
delivery of products.

The 2018 Budget Request allows the CMHRP to focus on provision of science-based products in
response to the priorities of the Administration, Interior and other Federal agencies, and critical needs of
State and local stakeholders. Activities supported within this budget will apply the unique and proven
capabilities of CMHRP to address issues of national consequence where they have the greatest potential
to impact public safety; coastal and marine policy, planning, and management; and where partner
priorities are demonstrated through collaboration and cost-sharing in planning, execution, and delivery.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Marine Habitat/Resource Mapping and Ocean and Glacier Studies to Inform Resource
Management. (-$1,600,000/-6 FTE): The reduction would eliminate monitoring, research, and model
development to forecast the impacts on coastal waters, ecosystems and fisheries due to ocean
acidification and changing fluxes of nutrients, freshwater, and sediment from retreating glaciers. This
will reduce the information and tools available to resource managers to anticipate and respond to stresses
on commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of Alaska.
Additionally, it reduces application of USGS mapping expertise to characterize marine habitats and sand
resources required for beach nourishment in areas where operational costs are not provided by external
partners.

Eliminate Elevation Model Development and Regional Coastal Resource Assessments (-$2,500,000/-
7 FTE): This reduces the development of “user ready” regional onshore/offshore elevation models for
regional restoration of San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Northwest, the Northern Gulf of Mexico and
Florida. These models are also used for State and Federal coastal management and planning. It also
reduces development and delivery of large-scale assessments of coral reef and associated community
vulnerability including impacts of changing reef structure on tourism, recreational and commercial
fisheries, and hazard exposure of military and other infrastructure in Florida, Hawaii, and the Pacific and
Caribbean territories.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-26 2018 Budget Justification
Natural Hazards

Reduce Support for Regional Coastal Management, Restoration, and Risk Reduction
(-$559,000/-3 FTE): This would result in a reduction of activities in the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and
Atlantic regions resulting in fewer and delayed products to support planning and implementation of
regional coastal management, restoration, and risk reduction strategies by Interior, other Federal and State
agencies. For example, activities in the Fire Island National Seashore, New York, to inform State and
Federal management and planning to reduce coastal hazards and manage protected resources and studies
supporting the Puget Sound Partnership goals for regional restoration will be concluded. Regional studies
supporting restoration in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and San Francisco Bay will be reduced, decreasing
the scope and extending the timeline for delivery of products to inform regional restoration efforts locally
and in similar coastal settings nationwide.

Reduce Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Operations (-$493,000/0 FTE): This reduction
would diminish the CMHRP’s ability to execute its core activities, including addressing coastal and
marine issues of national consequence that have the greatest potential to impact public safety as well as
coastal and marine policy, planning, and management, including equipment, services, and work with
partners.

Science Collaboration

The USGS collaborated with Oregon State University to map the seafloor in an area off Coos Bay, OR,
under consideration for construction of a floating wind-energy facility. Using funds from BOEM and the
USGS research vessel Parke Snavely, researchers collected data that were used to develop a digital
elevation model (DEM), habitat maps, and geologic maps needed by the BOEM for marine spatial
planning, ecosystem assessment, environmental reviews, and offshore infrastructure analysis. BOEM
will use this information for decisions about the proposed WindFloat Pacific 30-megawatt floating wind
farm, the first wind farm proposed offshore of the U.S. west coast. The USGS continues to collaborate
with BOEM on development of science-based tools to assess the vulnerability of offshore infrastructure
and operations due to geologic processes at and beneath the sea floor.

The CMHRP has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to leverage USGS expertise
about beach processes and responsibilities for forecasting beach change and USACE role in coordinating
beach nourishment projects. Beginning in 2015, the USGS and USACE are working with the American
Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) to plan for development of a new Coastal Resiliency
Network and to support collaborative research on coastal risk and vulnerability. The goal is to use the
wealth of data that already exists in the Corps, the USGS, and other Federal agencies to quantity coastal
resiliency and predict changes through time. Additionally the USGS and USACE are collaborating on
identifying ways to streamline and improve procedures for transforming raw lidar data into useful data
products.

For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service coastal units in the Northeast, CMHRP
delivered the iPlover, a smartphone application. This new tool helps Interior and local scientists

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification I-27
Natural Hazards

understand how piping plovers use coastal habitat. The USGS analyzed datasets documenting piping
plover habitat and developed a plover behavior model that is quantitatively tied to variables including
elevation, slope, frequency of inundation and overwash, and amount of vegetation. The USGS also
developed a habitat evolution model by relating the datasets documenting changes in the habitat (e.g.,
topography, shoreline position, vegetation) to changes in sea level and storminess. Coupling these two
models (plover behavior and habitat evolution) allows scientists to evaluate historical observations and
then model future scenarios to analyze alternative conservation and coastal protection strategies against
plausible sea level and other future climate variables. CMHRP is engaging State, local, other Federal and
NGO partners to evaluate expansion of this approach to development of management tools for additional
species and habitats of concern, including beach-nesting habitat for sea turtles.

USGS scientists served as subject matter experts in an Inter-Agency Sea Level Rise Panel Discussion
hosted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). During the past 20 years, multiple
hurricanes have caused billions of dollars in damage and much human suffering. These storms have
received much attention as the Nation strives for improved resiliency. FEMA Risk Mapping,
Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) Federal Coastal Partners are analyzing potential impacts of more
severe storms and sea-level rise, and supporting disaster planning for coastal States and communities.
USGS expertise greatly enhances discussions with FEMA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and USACE about how to incorporate geologic
changes into projections of future conditions for America’s shorelines.

U.S. Geological Survey
I-28 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources
Water Resources

Water Resources
USGS Water Science data and information
improves our safety, economy,
and quality of life.

Headwaters of the Big
Thompson River, Rocky
Mountain National Park, CO

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 $2,661 $0 -$39,906 $173,042 -$37,245
FTE 1,407 1,407 0 0 -179 1,228 -179
Water Availability and
$42,052 $41,972 $642 $0 -$12,201 $30,413 -$11,559
Use Science Program
FTE 340 340 0 0 -60 280 -60
Groundwater and
Streamflow $71,535 $71,399 $742 $0 -$3,982 $68,159 -$3,240
Information Program
FTE 392 392 0 0 -10 382 -10
National Water Quality
$90,600 $90,428 $1,277 $0 -$17,235 $74,470 -$15,958
Program
FTE 674 674 0 0 -108 566 -108
Water Resources
$6,500 $6,488 $0 $0 -$6,488 $0 -$6,488
Research Act Program
FTE 1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-1
Water Resources

Summary of Program Changes
Fixed
Request Component ($000's) FTE Page
Costs
Water Availability and Use Science Program -12,201 -60 +642 J--7
Reduce National Research Program -4,325 -28 J--8
Eliminate Water Use Data and Research -1,500 -1 J--9
Eliminate Mississippi Alluvial Plan Aquifer Assessment Project -1,000 -7 J--9
Eliminate U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment
-1,000 -4 J--9
Project
Eliminate Water-Use Unconventional Oil and Gas -250 -1 J--9
Eliminate Focus Area Studies -1,600 -8 J--9
Eliminate Two Regional Groundwater Evaluations -789 -4 J--9
Eliminate Groundwater Model Development, Maintenance and
-1,095 -7 J--9
Sustainability
Reduce Water Availability and Use Science Program Operations -642 0 J--9
Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program -3,982 -10 +742 J--11
Reduce National Research Program -1,540 -10 J--12
Reduce National Groundwater Monitoring Network -1,700 0 J--12
Reduce Support to Groundwater and Streamflow Information
-742 0 J--12
Operations
National Water Quality Program -17,235 -108 +1,277 J--13
Reduce National Research Program -6,011 -40 J--15
Eliminate National Park Service Cooperative Water Partnership -1,743 -12 J--15
Eliminate National Atmospheric Deposition Program -1,576 -10 J--15
Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Lower
-4,000 -28 J--16
Mississippi Stream Quality Assessment
Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Trends
-2,628 -18 J--16
Assessments
Reduce National Water Quality Program Operations -1,277 0 J--16
Water Resources Research Act Program -6,488 -1 0 J--17
Eliminate Water Resources Research Act Program -6,488 -1 J--17
Total Program Change -39,906 -179 +2,661

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Water Resources Mission Area is $173,042,000 and 1,228 FTE, a net
program change of -$39,906,000 and -179 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR)
level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $2,661,000.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-2 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Overview

The Water Resources Mission Area is comprised of four Programs—
● Water Availability and Use Science Program (WAUSP)
https://www.usgs.gov/science/mission-areas/water/water-availability-and-use-science-program
● Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program (GWSIP)
https://www.usgs.gov/science/mission-areas/water/groundwater-and-streamflow-information
● National Water Quality Program (NWQP)
https://www.usgs.gov/science/mission-areas/water/national-water-quality-program
● Water Resources Research Act Program (WRRA)
https://www.usgs.gov/science/mission-areas/water/water-resources-research-institute

Since 1879, the USGS has addressed issues of water availability and quality, drought, and flood hazards.
Today, covering all 50 States and Puerto Rico, hydrologic professionals and support staff continue this
legacy of providing the Nation with critical water information. As the primary Federal science agency for
water information, the USGS monitors and assesses the amount and characteristics of the Nation’s water
resources, assesses sources and behavior of contaminants in the water environment, and develops tools to
improve management and understanding of water resources. The USGS provides critical information
during times of drought and floods. USGS information and tools allow first responders, the public, water
managers and planners, policymakers and other decision makers to:
 Manage freshwater, both above and below the land surface, for domestic, public, agricultural,
commercial, industrial, recreational, and ecological uses.
 Protect and enhance water resources for human health, aquatic health, and environmental quality.
 Contribute to wise use, development, and conservation of the Nation's water resources for the
benefit of present and future generations.
 Minimize loss of life and property as a result of water-related natural hazards, such as floods,
droughts, landslides, and chemical spills.

The USGS Water Science Strategy (Strategy), outlined in its Circular 1383-G Observing, Understanding,
Predicting, and Delivering Water Science to the Nation (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1383g/circ1383-G.pdf),
identifies water science goals and objectives that serve the Nation and addresses the risks of water
challenges for future water supplies. The Strategy outlines areas where hydrologic science can make
substantial contributions to the Nation and identifies opportunities for the USGS to better use its
hydrologic science capabilities to address Administration priorities to ensure healthy watersheds and
sustainable, secure water supplies. In doing so, the Strategy informs long-term approaches to USGS
program planning, technology investment, partnership development, and workforce and human capital
strategies. The choice of strategic water science priority-actions, goals and objectives is based on the
guiding principles to observe, understand, predict and deliver water information that allows society to
meet the water challenges of the Nation, current and future. While the Strategy does not cover all facets

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-3
Water Resources

of USGS work in hydrology, it builds on a hierarchy of planning documents and provides a science-based
response to the overarching issues of water availability, water quality, and hydrologic hazards.

The USGS provides information and tools to decision makers that help minimize loss of life and property
as a result of water-related natural hazards, such as floods, droughts, and land movement; effectively
manage groundwater and surface water resources for domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial,
recreational, and ecological uses; and protect and enhance water resources for human health, aquatic
health, and environmental quality, all of which contribute to the wise physical and economic development
of the Nation's resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

The Water Resources Mission Area carries out its programs through 32 USGS Water Science Centers
covering all 50 States and Puerto Rico, as well as 3 major research installations located in Reston, VA,
Denver, CO, and Menlo Park, CA.

Cooperative Matching Funds

The cooperative matching funds program provides funding to partner with nearly 1,600 local, State
regional and Tribal agencies to monitor and assess water in every State, protectorate, and territory.

The 2018 request includes $57,710,000 across the three sub-activities of the mission area, unchanged
from the 2017 level. This includes $11,397,000 in WAUSP, $29,799,000 in GWSIP, and $16,514,000 in
NWQP.

Program Performance

Performance in the monitoring and assessing of the Nation’s water availability and quality shows steady
improvement from 2013 through 2016, toward long term, cumulative targets associated with the increase
in scope of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project coverage as specified in the Cycle
3 Science Plan (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20131160). This level of performance indicates
programs are effectively applying funding toward needed research, monitoring, and assessments to inform
decision makers about water availability and quality. The 2018 budget request maintains core goals and
priorities for the Water Resources programs.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-4 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

The Water Availability and Use Science Program (WAUSP) will:
 Measure and analyze water use information in cooperation with other Federal agencies, States,
localities, and Tribes to determine the amount of water used, where it is used, and how it is used
to allow management of water resources.
 Publish the 2015 National Water Use compilation report. The USGS has published this report
every five years since 1950.
 Continue work on regional groundwater availability studies that will provide managers more
information and new tools to understand groundwater resources in their area.
 Work with other partners, to conduct national water-budget component studies that will provide
quantitative information about the amount of water that resides in or is moving through individual
components of the water budget as part of the National Water Census.
 Expand work related to water availability issues on tribal lands and enhance cooperative activities
related to energy and water, drought, and data collection related to tribal water issues.
 Synthesize and report information at regional and national scales, with an emphasis on compiling
and reporting the information in a way that is useful to States and others responsible for water
management and natural resource issues, especially for areas affected by drought.
 Focus on drought research, including determining the changing importance of snowmelt in the
hydrologic cycle, that can provide a regional and national picture of how water availability and
use changes during drought. This would include effects of human water use, including
withdrawals, diversions, and return flows.

The Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program (GWSIP) will:
 Collect, manage, and disseminate consistently high quality and reliable hydrologic information in
real time and over the long term. This includes maintaining a unified national streamgage
network of more than 8,200 real-time streamgages, more than 1,600 real-time groundwater wells,
as well as, a growing network of interdisciplinary “Super Gages.”
 Continue research, development, and application of innovative techniques and technical oversight
for cost-effective monitoring.
 Support development and application of hazard information and tools to minimize loss of life and
property, such as Rapid Deployment Gages (RDG’s), Storm Tide Sensors, and Wave Height
Sensors. Maintain data collection during hydrologic hazards and deploy information tools for
water resource managers to minimize loss of life and property.

The National Water Quality Program (NWQP) will:
 Support long-term, nationally consistent monitoring of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides at 116
stream monitoring sites and collect and analyze water-quality samples from about 625
groundwater wells in some of the most important aquifers used as a source of water supply.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-5
Water Resources

 Develop regional-scale modeling of current and projected surface-water and groundwater quality
in selected major river basins and important principal aquifers will continue as planned.
 Conduct research on the interactions among water-mediated processes in a warming arctic, assess
system feedbacks (e.g., effects of warming on hydrology and biogeochemical cycling, which
subsequently affects climate and hydrology), and better anticipate future system changes, expand
monitoring of hydrologic (groundwater, surface water, thermos-karst features) cycles.
 Continue long-term monitoring and modeling studies of nutrients, pesticides, sediments, and
other important water-quality constituents to provide critical information for water managers,
policymakers, and the public about current water-quality conditions, how they are changing
through time, and the major factors that influence observed conditions and trends.

Science to Support Collaboration

The USGS Water Resources Programs work with States, municipalities, regional organizations, Tribes,
and non-governmental organizations, including private industries, involving contributions for cooperative
water efforts. These entities, in turn, collaborate with more than 1600 Federal, State, Tribal and local
agencies and private sector organizations. Cooperators choose to work with the USGS because of its
broad, interdisciplinary expertise; high-quality, nationally consistent procedures and quality-assurance;
innovative monitoring technology, models, and research tools; and robust data management and delivery
systems that provide readily available public access to national data. In addition, other partners include
Interior bureaus (Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau
of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs); Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Air Force, Army, Navy); Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Department of State; Federal
Emergency Management Agency; Department of Transportation; Department of Agriculture; and
Department of Energy.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-6 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Water Resources
Water Availability and Use Science Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 $2,661 $0 -$39,906 $173,042 -$37,245
FTE 1,407 1,407 0 0 -179 1,228 -179
Water Availability
and Use Science $42,052 $41,972 $642 $0 -$12,201 $30,413 -$11,559
Program
FTE 340 340 0 0 -60 280 -60

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Water Availability and Use Science Program is $30,413,000 and 280
FTE, a net change of -$12,201,000 and -60 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR)
level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $642,000.

Overview

The Water Availability and Use Science Program (WAUSP) directly supports the USGS Science Strategy
focus on the National Water Census; providing scientific information on water availability and use
nationally to inform the public and decision makers about the status of water resources and how they are
changing. This program also fulfills the goal stated in the SECURE Water Act (P.L. 111-11), Section
9508, to establish a “national water availability and use assessment program.” The WAUSP will
synthesize and report information at regional and national scales, with an emphasis on compiling and
reporting information in a way that is useful to States and others responsible for water management and
natural resource issues.

The WAUSP supports the USGS National Water Census through work to develop and deliver water
budget estimates across the Nation, aggregate and analyze water use information, and assess regional
groundwater availability. In addition, the WAUSP supports, maintains, and enhances USGS data delivery
systems to process and disseminate study results beyond the immediate needs of funding agencies or
programs. The WAUSP supports development of innovative tools, setting standards of practice for
hydrologic activities, training staff for fieldwork as well as complex modeling studies. Finally, activities

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-7
Water Resources

in the WAUSP also include cooperative science activities with States, localities, and Tribes, as well as the
USGS National Research Program’s hydrologic sciences.

In support of the National Census of water resources, the USGS completed the National Brackish
Groundwater Assessment to provide updated information about brackish groundwater as a potential
resource to augment or replace freshwater supplies. This study, the first of its kind in more than 50 years,
found that the amount of brackish groundwater underlying the country is more than 800 times the amount
currently used each year. With issues like drought, groundwater depletion, dwindling freshwater
supplies, and demand for groundwater expected to continue to rise, understanding brackish groundwater
supplies can help determine whether they can supplement or replace taxed freshwater sources in water-
stressed areas.

The USGS also supports activities of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI, a
Presidential Federal Advisory Committee) and its subcommittees. The ACWI represents the interests of
water-information users and professionals in advising the Federal Government on Federal water-
information programs and their effectiveness in meeting the Nation's needs. Member organizations help
to foster communications between the Federal and non-Federal sectors on collecting, standardizing, and
sharing water information, ultimately resulting in reduced Federal costs for operating resource
management and environmental protection programs.

The 2018 budget request focuses on the core priorities for water availability and use:
 Providing daily water budget components nationally at the basin scale.
 Assessing and quantifying the availability of groundwater resources.
 Implementing nationwide methods to estimate streamflow at locations without streamgages.
 Improving assessment of the status and trends of the water resources of the United States.
 Developing the basis for improved forecasting for the availability of water for future
consumption.
 Advancing water use science through models that link water use to drivers that predict human
uses, including the water, energy and food nexus.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce National Research Program (-$4,325,000/-28 FTE): This reduces research in the San
Francisco Bay Delta, Klamath Lake, the Florida Everglades, and Chesapeake Bay to improve operational
forecasting of water availability and ecological health. In addition, geomorphic and sediment research
will be eliminated. This also reduces research at the 32 USGS Water Science Centers across the United
States that address existing and emerging water availability and use issues. This reduces localized,
regional, and national studies examining how changes in water budget components (including
precipitation, evapotranspiration, streamflow, and groundwater) impact water availability. The ability to
extrapolate current conditions, both spatially and temporally, and forecast future changes using surface
and groundwater models would be reduced, limiting information for resource managers.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-8 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Eliminate Water Use Data and Research (-$1,500,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates cooperative
agreements with States to improve the availability, quality, compatibility, and delivery of water-use data
that is collected or estimated by States in order to manage long-term water supplies.

Eliminate Mississippi Alluvial Plan Aquifer Assessment Project (-$1,000,000/-7 FTE): This would
eliminate the Mississippi Alluvial Plan Aquifer Assessment, including the collection of detailed
information about the interaction of groundwater and streamflow that would support sustainable
agriculture in Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee.

Eliminate U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Project (-$1,000,000/-4 FTE): This
eliminates the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment, a collaboration with the USGS, the
States of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas through their Water Resources Research Institutes and the
International Boundary and Water Commission, stakeholders, and Mexican counterparts to provide new
information and a scientific foundation for State and local officials to address water-resource challenges
along the U.S. – Mexico border.

Eliminate Water-Use Unconventional Oil and Gas (-$250,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates a pilot study
in the Williston Basin (Western Dakotas and eastern Montana) to provide tools and information to
determine the quantities of water necessary to develop and recover unconventional oil and gas resources.

Eliminate Focus Area Studies (-$1,600,000/-8 FTE): This eliminates collaborative studies in the Upper
Rio Grande, the Red River, and the Coastal Carolina Basins with State and local partners to provide data,
models and decision-support tools, such as water availability estimates, snow melt information, and
groundwater and surface water models to improve water resource management.

Eliminate Two Regional Groundwater Evaluations (-$789,000/-4 FTE): This eliminates two of 14
studies of regional groundwater, the Coastal Lowlands Aquifer System (CLAS), which extends from
Texas to the Panhandle of Florida, and the California Coastal Basin Aquifers. The CLAS study focuses
on land subsidence issues in Houston and developing tools to assist in managing the entire groundwater
system from Texas to northern Florida. The California Coastal Basins study applies new modeling
techniques to enable local agencies to identify groundwater issues, such as chronic lowering of
groundwater levels, reduction of storage, seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, land subsidence, and
depletion of interconnected surface waters.

Eliminate Groundwater Model Development, Maintenance and Sustainability (-$1,095,000/-7 FTE):
This eliminates maintenance and improvements on existing groundwater software tools, MODFLOW and
GSFLOW. MODFLOW is the de facto international standard code for aquifer simulation and GSFLOW
is a linked surface water and groundwater modeling code. Both tools provide valuable information used in
resource management.

Reduce Water Availability and Use Science Program Operations (-$642,000/0 FTE): This reduction
would diminish the ability to execute its core activities including assessing and quantifying the
availability of groundwater resources, providing a more accurate assessment of the status and trends of
the water resources of the United States, as well as developing the basis for an improved ability to
forecast the availability of water for future economic, energy production, and environmental uses. In
addition, equipment, services and work with partners will be impacted.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-9
Water Resources

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-10 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Water Resources
Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 $2,661 $0 -$39,906 $173,042 -$37,245
FTE 1,407 1,407 0 0 -179 1,228 -179
Groundwater
and
Streamflow $71,535 $71,399 $742 $0 -$3,982 $68,159 -$3,240
Information
Program
FTE 392 392 0 0 -10 382 -10

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program is $68,159,000 and
382 FTE, a net change of -$3,982,000 and -10 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution
(CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $742,000.

Overview

Monitoring networks that generate hydrologic data are the foundation of situational awareness and
understanding of the Nation’s water resources. The Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program
(GWSIP) encompasses the Water Resources Mission Area’s objectives to collect, manage, and
disseminate consistently high-quality and reliable hydrologic information in real-time and over the long-
term, which are critical for managing our Nation’s water resources and for anticipating and responding to
water hazards that can result in loss of life and property.

The GWSIP serves as the national source of impartial, timely, rigorous, and relevant data for short- and
long-term water decisions by local, State, Tribal, regional, and national stakeholders. The continuous
real-time water data supplied by the program are used for decisions such as emergency response, flood
forecasting, reservoir releases, water-use restrictions, drinking-water deliveries, permit compliance,
water-quality studies, and recreational safety. The long-term data supplied by the program are used for
decisions such as water-supply planning, aquifer storage and recovery, infrastructure design, floodplain
and ecosystem management, energy development, and resolution of water disputes. Access to water
information is increasingly critical as climate patterns, land use, and population change, increasing the
challenges of managing competing water priorities.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-11
Water Resources

The 2018 budget request focuses on the core priorities for Groundwater and Streamflow:
 Sustaining the National streamgage (more than 8,200 real-time gages) and groundwater (more
than 1,600 wells) monitoring networks.
 Maintaining the USGS network of interdisciplinary “Super Gages.”
 Developing and implementing hazard-data collection, information presentation, and new tools to
minimize loss of life and property.
 Supporting research, development, and application of cost-effective monitoring, record
maintenance, and data delivery.
 Managing and developing cutting-edge instrumentation through the Hydrologic Instrumentation
Facility.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce National Research Program (NRP) (-$1,540,000/-10 FTE): This reduces research on water
quality and the development of effective remediation strategies, which may extend hazardous waste
cleanup in many States by several years. It will also end the collection and provision of water-quality
data and trend analysis on nutrients and sediments to Federal and State partners in the Gulf of Mexico and
Chesapeake Bay, as well as affect local and State efforts to lower nutrient levels affecting drinking water
intakes and local rivers and lakes.

Reduce National Groundwater Monitoring Network (NGWMN) (-$1,700,000/0 FTE): This reduces
cooperative agreements with States that support national and local groundwater databases that are shared
through the NGWMN Data Portal. In addition, it will reduce support for a network of groundwater wells
that monitor the effects of droughts and other factors on groundwater levels. The network consists of
about 130 groundwater wells in 20 states. This may increase difficulties for States, regional authorities,
and local agencies coordinating management activities related to drought, water resource planning and
permitting on shared groundwater resources. It also reduces well maintenance and replacement, creating
information gaps.

Reduce Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program Operations (- $742,000/0 FTE): This
reduction would diminish the ability to execute its core activities including strengthening the National
streamgage and groundwater monitoring networks, developing and implementing hazard data collection,
information presentation and new tools to minimize loss of life and property, research, development, as
well as application of cost-effective monitoring, record maintenance, and data delivery. In addition,
equipment, services and work with partners will be impacted.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-12 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Water Resources
National Water Quality Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 $2,661 $0 -$39,906 $173,042 -$37,245
FTE 1,407 1,407 0 0 -179 1,228 -179
National Water
Quality $90,600 $90,428 $1,277 $0 -$17,235 $74,470 -$15,958
Program
FTE 674 674 0 0 -108 566 -108

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the National Water Quality Program is $74,470,000 and 566 FTE, a net
change of -$17,235,000 and -108 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $1,277,000.

Overview

Water-quality challenges are increasing in number and complexity, and solutions are becoming more
challenging and costly. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population in 2017 is now over
325 million people. Increased population accompanied by increased development and use of fertilizers
and pesticides for food production, will increase pressure on existing resources for to supply water of
suitable quality for irrigation, drinking water, energy development, and healthy ecosystems. The NWQP
investments in monitoring, assessment, and research provide the data and scientific information needed to
address current and future water-quality challenges.

The National Water Quality Program (NWQP) includes water-quality monitoring, assessment, and
research activities done by the Water Mission Area that
 Assess the current quality of the Nation’s freshwater resources and how it is changing over time.
 Explain how human activities and natural factors (e.g., land use, water use and climate
variability) are affecting the quality of surface water and groundwater resources.
 Determine the relative effects of important sources of impairment including contaminants, excess
nutrients and sediment, and altered streamflow on aquatic ecosystems.
 Predict the effects of human activities, climate change, and management strategies on future
water-quality and ecosystem conditions.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-13
Water Resources

The NAWQA Project is the largest component of the NWQP. In 1991, Congress established NAWQA
within the USGS to address a fundamental question: “What is the status of the Nation’s water quality and
is it getting better or worse?” Since then, the NAWQA Project has been a primary source of objective
and nationally consistent water-quality data and information on the quality of the Nation’s streams and
groundwater. NAWQA Project data and models provide answers to where, when, and why the Nation’s
water quality is degraded, and what can be done to improve and protect it for human and ecosystem needs
(http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/xrel.pdf).

Over 25 years of the NAWQA Project monitoring and modeling have resulted in a solid foundation of
data and scientific understanding that resource manager and policy makers within the water community
have used to address current and future water-quality issues. During its first decade, (1991-2001 or Cycle
1), the NAWQA Project completed interdisciplinary baseline assessments of the quality of streams,
groundwater, and aquatic ecosystems in 51 of the Nation’s largest and most important river basins and
aquifers. The assessments were based on sampling at 505 stream sites and more than 5,000 wells.
During its second decade, (2001-2012 or Cycle 2), the NAWQA Project built upon the baseline
assessments by reporting on how water-quality conditions were changing over time and by developing
regional-scale water-quality models to extrapolate findings to unmonitored areas.

The NAWQA Project’s third decade (2013-2023 or Cycle 3) science plan
(http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20131160) continues strategies that have been central to the
NAWQA Project’s long-term success, but adjusts approaches, monitoring intensity, and study design to
address data and science information needs identified by the NAWQA Project stakeholders and the
National Research Council (NRC), which reviewed the Cycle 3 plan in 2012
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13464&page=R1). The current plan addresses
stakeholder needs for timely reporting of water-quality information, science, and tools, through: (1)
annual Web-based reporting of concentrations, loads, and trends of nutrients, sediment, and other
contaminants in rivers draining into important coastal estuaries; (2) preparation of maps showing the
distribution of nitrate, arsenic, and other contaminants in important water-supply aquifers at the depth
tapped by domestic and public-supply wells; and (3) model-based decision support tools that allow
managers to evaluate how water quality or stream ecosystems may change in response to different
scenarios of population growth.

The 2018 budget request focuses on the following core priorities for Water Quality:
 Assessing the current quality of the Nation’s streams and aquifers and how water quality is
changing over time. 

 Evaluating how human and natural factors affect the surface water and groundwater.
 Determining the relative effects of multiple stressors on aquatic ecosystems to guide stream and
ecosystem restoration efforts. 

 Predicting the effects of human activities, climate variability, and different management strategies
on water quality and ecosystem conditions.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-14 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

 Conducting monitoring and modeling studies to develop tools that water resource managers and
drinking-water suppliers can use to forecast toxic harmful algal bloom events and protect human
and ecosystem health.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce National Research Program (NRP) (-$6,011,000/-40 FTE): This would suspend studies in
Arizona, California, Colorado, and Minnesota that focus on how contaminants move through the
environment, their degradation or, if they persist, whether or not they pose a risk to human or aquatic
ecosystem health. It would suspend studies that examine how nutrients, carbon and sediment are
transported and delivered to small streams in the agricultural Midwest and to large estuaries such as the
Chesapeake Bay or in the Gulf of Mexico. Studies examining the post-wildfire impacts on water quality
and ecosystems in the Western United States and the effects of climate variability on the condition of
permafrost in Alaska would also be suspended. The ability to forecast which legacy or emerging
contaminants pose a threat to drinking water supplies in Arizona and Colorado or the health of aquatic
ecosystems in California, the upper Midwest, and the Gulf of Mexico would be sharply curtailed. The
ability to extrapolate current conditions and forecast future changes in water quality in important
watersheds, such as the Mississippi River Basin or critical aquifers like the Central Valley of California,
would be delayed 5-10 years, suspending the production of critical information water resource managers
use to evaluate water resources for agricultural irrigation and safe drinking water supplies across the
United States.

Eliminate National Park Service Cooperative Water Partnership (NPS-CWP) (-$1,743,000/-12
FTE): This funding decrease would eliminate the NWQP's NPS-CWP, which provides water-quality
science support to the National Park Service. For over 20 years, the NPS-CWP has supported data
collection and interpretative studies of priority water-quality issues in the Nation's national parks
including the occurrence of emerging contaminants, harmful algal blooms, endocrine disrupting
compounds, harmful algal blooms, and mercury and other metals in park waters. Collectively or
individually, these sources of water-quality impairment threaten human and aquatic ecosystem health and
have the potential to decrease the number of visitors and reduce revenue in affected parks. Twenty-one
existing projects will be stopped that include studies examining threats to water quality in Crater Lake
National Park (OR), Golden Gate National Recreational Area and Yosemite National Park (CA),
Chattahoochee National Recreational Area (GA), Voyagers National Park (MN), Fire Island National
Seashore (NY), Saguaro National Park (AZ), Lake Mead (AZ, NV) Delaware River Gap (NJ, PA),
Jamestown Island Colonial National Historic Park (VA), and New River Gorge (WV). Without these
projects, and any future planned projects, the NPS will have less information with which to make
decisions about water quality, which would impact the public water supply at the parks and potentially
affect the health of park visitors and wildlife.

Eliminate National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) (-$1,576,000/-10 FTE): This decrease
will eliminate USGS participation in the NADP a collaborative effort that involves about 250 Federal,
State, tribal, academic, and local organizations who operate five national monitoring networks that
measure atmospheric inputs of nutrients, acidic compounds, mercury, ammonia, and other chemicals to
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The decrease would eliminate monitoring at 82 sites in 38 States and

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-15
Water Resources

Puerto Rico, which is about 30 percent of the program’s network. NADP data, which go back 40 years at
some sites, are used to produce the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Joint
Commission air quality reports, to establish mercury fish consumption advisories and provide
surveillance data for biological, chemical, or radiological agents derived from natural or manmade
disasters, such as radioactive fallout from the 2011 Fukushima reactor meltdown.

Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Lower Mississippi Stream Quality Assessment
(-$4,000,000/-28 FTE): This eliminates the planned NAWQA Project stream-quality assessment study
of the Lower Mississippi River Basin (LMRB). The collaborative study would have characterized sources
of water-quality and aquatic ecosystem impairment—contaminants, nutrients, sediment, and
streamflow— and ecological conditions in streams in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Tennessee and Kentucky to determine the relative effects of these stressors on the health of aquatic
communities and to identify which human and natural factors are most critical in controlling stream
quality.

Reduce National Water-Quality Assessment Project Trends Assessments
(-$2,628,000/-18 FTE): This decrease will delay implementation of planned studies that will determine
and explain which natural and human factors are most important in influencing long-term trends in
surface water and groundwater quality. The decrease also eliminates planned sampling of groundwater-
quality networks in seven States (AZ, IL, MN, NJ, SC, TX, and WA), and eliminates water-quality
sampling at four percent of the long-term monitoring sites operated as part of the USGS National Water
Quality Network for Streams and Rivers. This decrease would also delay or suspend a study of long-term
water quality trends in the Nation's rivers and streams. The decrease will delay data analysis and reporting
by four years and delay work at the regional and national scale to assess the effectiveness of investments
in wastewater treatment plant upgrades and best management practices, particularly in agricultural areas.

Reduce National Water Quality Program Operations (-$1,277,000/0 FTE): This decrease would
reduce NAWQA Project activities assessing the current and future quality of the Nation’s freshwater
resources, evaluating which human and natural factors are driving observed geographic patterns and
trends, and developing tools and models water resource managers and drinking-water suppliers can use to
forecast short and long-term changes to water quality, such as forecasting harmful algal blooms or
decadal-scale changes in groundwater quality. In addition, maintenance of monitoring equipment, data
services and work with partners will be impacted.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-16 2018 Budget Justification
Water Resources

Water Resources
Water Resources Research Act

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Water Resources $210,687 $210,287 $2,661 $0 -$39,906 $173,042 -$37,245
FTE 1,407 1,407 0 0 -179 1,228 -179
Water Resources
Research Act $6,500 $6,488 $0 $0 -$6,488 $0 -$6,488
Program
FTE 1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Water Resources Research Act Program is $0 and 0 FTE, a net change of
-$6,488,000 and -1 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level.

Overview

The Water Resources Research Act, authorized by section 104 of the Water Resources Research Act
(WRRA) of 1984, is a Federal–State partnership that plans, facilitates, and coordinates water resources
research, education, and information transfer through a matching grant program. The WRRA authorized
the establishment of State Water Resources Research Institutes (National Institutes for Water Resources)
at land grant universities across the Nation. There are currently 54 Institutes: one in each State, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. The Institute in Guam serves the
Federated States of Micronesia and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The WRRA
Program provides an institutional mechanism for promoting State, regional, and national coordination of
water resources research, promotes student education and training, and is a focal point for research
coordination and information and technology transfer. The WRRA expired in 2011.

2018 Program Changes

Eliminate Water Resources Research Act Program (-$6,488,000/-1 FTE): This eliminates a grant and
cooperative agreement program for land grant universities. This would end USGS involvement in
coordination and administrative support for all grants to Water Resource Research Institutes. Applied
research projects that address a wide variety of water resource topics and problems at the State level
would no longer receive funding through this expired program.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification J-17
Water Resources

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
J-18 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems
Core Science Systems

Core Science Systems
The USGS offers foundational geospatial data,
maps, and analytical tools that support smart
decision making benefitting America's economy.
3D Elevation Program (3DEP) lidar
image shows elevation changes over an
Alaskan mountain range.

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Core Science Systems $111,550 $111,339 $1,021 $0 -$19,391 $92,969 -$18,370
FTE 456 456 0 0 -58 398 -58
National Geospatial Program $62,854 $62,735 $575 $0 -$11,375 $51,935 -$10,800
FTE 257 257 0 0 -26 231 -26
National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program $24,397 $24,351 $244 $0 -$2,314 $22,281 -$2,070
FTE 109 109 0 0 -5 104 -5
Science Synthesis, Analysis
and Research Program $24,299 $24,253 $202 $0 -$5,702 $18,753 -$5,500
FTE 90 90 0 0 -27 63 -27

Summary Changes

Fixed
Request Component
($000's) FTE Costs Page
National Geospatial Program -11,375 -26 +575 K--9
Reduce Federal Geographic Data Committee Functions -2,700 -7 K--11
Eliminate Geospatial Research and Reduce 3DEP Technical Support -5,100 -19 K--11
Reduce 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Functions -3,000 0 K--11
Reduce National Geospatial Program Operations -575 0 K--11
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program -2,314 -5 +244 K--13
Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Functions -2,070 -5 K--15
Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Operations -244 0 K--15
Science Synthesis, Analysis and Research Program -5,702 -27 +202 K--17
Reduce USGS Library Functions -3,000 -20 K--19
Reduce Biogeographic Science Functions -2,500 -7 K--19
Reduce Science Synthesis, Analysis and Research Program Operations -202 0 K--19
Total Program Change -19,391 -58 +1,021

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-1
Core Science Systems

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Core Science Systems Mission Area is $92,969,000 and 398 FTE, and
includes a program change of -$19,391,000 and -58 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing
Resolution (CR). This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $1,021,000.

Overview

Core Science Systems (CSS) leads the USGS’s
mission as the civilian mapping agency for the

Critical Zone
Nation and supports the conduct of detailed surveys
and the resulting distribution of high-quality and
highly-accurate topographic, geologic, hydrographic,
and biogeographic maps and data. Mapping
accuracy through cutting-edge technology allows for
precise planning for energy development,
transportation and pipeline infrastructure projects,
urban planning, flood prediction, emergency
CSS continuously strives to better understand,
response, and hazard mitigation. characterize, synthesize, and apply context to
the complex processes and interactions taking
CSS builds on the core strengths of the USGS in place in the Earth’s Critical Zone.
characterizing and understanding complex Earth and
natural systems. CSS products provide foundational geospatial data for the Nation; underpin the work of
all USGS mission areas; and are essential enablers for meeting the USGS’s priorities in addressing
America’s growing energy, mineral resource, water, and infrastructure improvement needs.
The CSS Mission Area:
• Provides foundational geospatial, geological, hydrological, and biogeographical maps and data
for the Nation’s topography, natural landscape, and built environment.
• Conducts science, surveys, and research on the Nation’s geological and biological resources and
offers geospatial data, map services, and decision-support tools for the American public to easily
discover and use for local, regional, national, or continental analyses.
• Coordinates the effective and economical use and management of geospatial data assets for the
government and the Nation.
• Enhances data synthesis and analysis across science disciplines for infrastructure modernization,
natural hazards mitigation, energy and mineral exploration and assessments, emergency response,
and ground and surface water resource assessments to enable data-driven science.
• Preserves and promotes geological and geophysical data collections to provide a framework for
geoscience data and information sharing.
• Improves Federal-State cooperation and collaboration by effectively leveraging partnerships.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-2 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

CSS Programs

The National Geospatial Program (NGP) – The NGP
organizes, updates, and publishes the geospatial baseline
of the Nation’s topography, natural landscape and built
environment through The National Map. The NGP also
conducts geospatial research to discover new approaches
for updating and using geospatial data and for reducing
costs of these activities. The National Map is a
compilation of the foundational data layers for the entire
Nation, maintained in the public domain.
(https://go.usa.gov/xXATR)

The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
(NCGMP) – The NCGMP characterizes, interprets, and
distributes the geologic framework model (i.e., a three-
dimensional visualization of surface and subsurface rock,
soil, and sediment layers) of the Nation through geologic
mapping and research in support of the responsible use of
land, water, energy, and minerals resources. These
products also help to mitigate the impact of geologic
hazards on society and facilitate economic growth and
national security through informed natural resource
management. (https://go.usa.gov/xXATd)

The Science Synthesis, Analysis and Research Program
(SSAR) – The SSAR Program provides analysis and
synthesis of scientific data and information, long-term
preservation of scientific data, and library collections. This
program accelerates research and decision making through
data science, information delivery, advanced computing,
biodiversity analytics, and preserved geoscientific assets
(e.g., drilling cores, rock, soil, and sediment samples).
(https://go.usa.gov/xXATg and https://go.usa.gov/xXATw)

The CSS Mission Area will continue valuable and highly cost-effective collaborations with our Federal,
State, tribal, local, and private sector partners to deliver nationally-consistent, high-quality maps and data
products and computational needs that meet the growing demand for accurate and precise representations
of natural and man-made features. In 2018, the CSS Mission Area would:
• Support America’s energy future through identifying energy, mineral, and oil and gas resources
through targeted and detailed geologic mapping.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-3
Core Science Systems

• Plan for America’s future infrastructure, engineering, and transportation projects (e.g., roads,
bridges, and highways; pipelines and power lines; dams and hydropower plants; county and urban
sectors; and railroads and airports).
• Guide natural hazards and flood-risk assessments essential for the public safety of millions of
Americans through detailed geologic mapping and three-dimensional modeling.
• Spur the creation of new jobs and businesses based on location analytics and geo-enabled mobile
applications mining USGS data.
• Enable cost-efficient and rapid processing of the complex computational models and analyses
associated with the high-resolution elevation, hydrographic, three-dimensional geologic, and
biogeographic datasets through high-performance computing.
• Support public safety and disaster recovery, wildfire management, hunting, and outdoor
recreation by providing accurate and up-to-date digital topographic maps and map-on-demand
services.
• Support assessments of surface water and ground water sources for America’s water stewardship
by providing high-resolution hydrography data and detailed geologic maps.
• Create efficiencies by providing USGS high-performance computing capacity and expertise and
facilitating rapid data analysis to support large-scale computational research for the USGS and
Interior on land management questions.
• Promote a shared conservation ethic by providing biogeographic data (e.g., species distributions),
maps, and decision support tools to inform recreation and sporting, land and water stewardship,
infrastructure, fire and energy policy decisions.
• Evaluate the effects of Earth processes (e.g., storm surge, landslides, earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, coastal erosion, flooding, and drought) on economic security, public safety and tribal
resources.
• Provide foundational geospatial data for America’s national security and emergency
preparedness.

The 2018 President's budget request continues to support CSS programs that provide critical topographic,
geologic, hydrologic, and biogeographic data, maps, and services for America including:
• High-resolution, three-dimensional elevation mapping and accurate and up-to-date topographic
mapping support for the Nation's infrastructure and public safety.
• High-resolution interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IfSAR) and topographic mapping for
Alaska supporting transportation, hydrology, infrastructure modernization, and aviation safety.
• High-resolution hydrographic mapping for the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for public
safety, water stewardship, and hazard mitigation.
• Surface and subsurface three-dimensional geologic mapping for energy, mineral, and oil and gas
assessments, seismic analyses, and natural hazard mitigation.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-4 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

• High-performance computing and data science enabling all aspects of USGS research and
modeling in support of public safety, energy, minerals, infrastructure and science.
• Data and tools from the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), which is a
National Geospatial Data Asset used in land stewardship, effective siting for renewable energy
facilities and other infrastructure, and fuel and fire management studies.
• Preservation of geoscientific physical samples (rocks and core samples) and data to aid in future
energy and mineral exploration and geologic assessments.

The USGS's external partners rely on the consistent, high-quality geospatial data and a wide range of
other three-dimensional representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features produced by the
CSS Mission Area. CSS foundational data, tools, and mapping technologies provide valuable
productivity, safety, and cost-saving benefits to the public by facilitating infrastructure improvement,
construction and engineering projects, energy-siting evaluations, aviation safety, flood risk management,
and natural hazard evaluations.

Program Performance

Dramatically new, state-of-the-art technology (e.g., airborne remote sensing) and methods for observing
and mapping of America's land, water, and resources have the capability of measuring and monitoring the
Earth’s surface, sub-surface, and biota with unprecedented accuracy. The USGS, with its partners, is
realizing significant enhancements and efficiencies in the acquisition, production, and delivery of
elevation, hydrographic, geologic, and biogeographic maps and data nationwide by operationalizing these
new technologies and techniques. As a result, production and delivery rates continue to improve—which
translates to more data products and tools available to the Nation to support smart decisions.

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

National Geospatial Program
• Continue acquisition of high-resolution lidar elevation data to achieve the first-ever cycle of
nationwide lidar coverage in 2033 to support topographic map production.
• Continue acquisition of high-resolution interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IfSAR) elevation
data for the State of Alaska; develop more efficient means of updating hydrography data; and
continue to produce topographic maps.
• Continue acquisition of high-resolution hydrography data (NHD+HR) for the Nation to support
flood risk management; infrastructure improvements; and energy resource management.
• Continue to strengthen the outreach and communication strategy for Federal, State, local, and
tribal partners and private sector users that receive matching funds to acquire new elevation data.
• Continue to support emergency operations that support major disasters such as hurricanes,
tornados, flood response, and public safety (e.g., Hurricane Matthew recovery, Oroville, CA,
Dam emergency).
• Implement a cloud-based system capable of topographic map production and distribution.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-5
Core Science Systems

• Initiate quarterly updates to national foundational mapping databases in dynamic Web services,
substantially improving user access to current information.
• Lead the development of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's (FGDC) strategic action
framework, which provides a federal and non-federal collaborative approach to the advancement
of the Nation's geospatial infrastructure. These efforts lay the foundation for the next National
Spatial Data Infrastructure Strategic Plan.
• Support—via the FGDC Secretariat—the FGDC's 32-Federal agency committee, Interior, and the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Chair and Vice-Chair leadership responsibilities,
Interior’s National Geospatial Advisory Committee of non-Federal partners; and limit
implementation of OMB’s Circular A-16 for the coordination of Federal geospatial and mapping
activities and the Nation’s Spatial Data Infrastructure.

National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program
• Improve beneficial partnering between the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program's
(NCGMP) FEDMAP, STATEMAP and EDMAP components to maximize return on program
investment and facilitate intellectual exchange and data sharing.
• Enhance the performance and relevance of the NCGMP's components (FEDMAP, STATEMAP,
EDMAP) to maximize efficiency in program function, funding allocation, prioritization of need,
and program accountability.
• Optimize the use of remote sensing, geophysical surveys, and national digital geospatial datasets
to expand opportunities for the development of subsurface geologic interpretations, increase the
interpretive resolution of surface mapping and to boost geologic mapping productivity.
• Provide guidance and education for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program 09
(NCGMP09) data schema and assist State geological surveys and USGS scientists in their
adoption of this data standard.
• Work with partners at the American Geosciences Institute, Geological Society of America, and
universities to improve youth outreach and develop more opportunities to train geologic mappers
in all facets of the science, including emerging mapping technologies.
• Strengthen and expand the National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB) by establishing geologic
map standards, creating, interpreting and building a seamless geologic map database for the
Nation based on new geologic mapping at regional-to-local scales, and utilizing new and existing
tools to extrapolate surface geologic mapping to subsurface interpretation and temporal geologic
evolution of the Earth.

Science, Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program
• Support the use and development of field-based technology and related standards for purposes of
expediting and expanding digital field data capture and real-time interpretation, data preservation
and dissemination.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-6 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

• Enhance the USGS's High-Performance Computing capabilities to support USGS and Interior
computational and management challenges, and enable more timely data analysis, reduce wait
time for available central processing units (CPU), and assist in the public release of research
results.

• Continue development of the USGS's
National Biogeographic Map to
provide analytical tools for the
examination of selected species,
habitats, protections, and habitat
conditions.

• Continue to increase access,
discovery, understanding and reuse
of USGS science data and
information by providing USGS
researchers the tools and expertise to
release and preserve science data.

• Continue to support States to preserve, and promote for reuse, valuable geoscientific documents,
samples, and data to inform geologic studies for resource and energy development, and
infrastructure projects.

• Continue to work with private sector, State, and Federal government researchers to promote
preservation of geoscientific artifacts and data by promoting best practices, shared repositories,
and standardized data sharing techniques to expose and enable investigation of existing
collections and associated data.

• Improve discovery and access to valuable fossils, rock cores, and associated data to industry,
academic, and government researchers to promote geoscientific investigation of natural resources
(e.g., oil, gas, and minerals) and infrastructure development.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-7
Core Science Systems

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-8 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

Core Science Systems
National Geospatial Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Core Science Systems $111,550 $111,339 $1,021 $0 -$19,391 $92,969 -$18,370
FTE 456 456 0 0 -58 398 -58
National Geospatial
Program $62,854 $62,735 $575 $0 -$11,375 $51,935 -$10,800
FTE 257 257 0 0 -26 231 -26

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the National Geospatial Program is $51,935,000 and 231 FTE, and includes
a program change of -$11,375,000 and -26 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR)
level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $575,000.

Overview

The National Geospatial Program (NGP) organizes, updates, and publishes the geospatial baseline of the
Nation’s topography, natural landscape and built environment through The National Map, and conducts
geospatial research to discover new approaches for updating and using geospatial data and for reducing
costs of these activities. The National Map is a compilation of the foundational data layers for the entire
Nation, maintained in the public domain.

The American public relies on the NGP’s modern enhanced data and mapping to remain informed and
stay healthy and safe. Modern surveying methods (such as airborne sensors), evolving technologies, and
high-quality geospatial data and services help to create private sector jobs, fuel American economic
opportunities, and support a wide array of uses. The NGP supports the Department of the Interior’s
responsibilities for national geospatial coordination, and carries out the USGS’s government-wide
leadership responsibilities for elevation, hydrography and watershed boundaries, and geographic names.

The NGP's 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) acquires high-resolution elevation data to protect infrastructure
and natural resources and improve public safety. Collaboration efforts, supported by geospatial liaisons
from across the United States are critical for coordinating with Federal, State, local, and tribal
governments and private industry users to obtain matching funds (approximately four partner dollars for
each USGS dollar invested). This strategy effectively leverages Federal dollars through partnerships to
support land and water stewardship and security, and enable job creation.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-9
Core Science Systems

The economic benefit of high-resolution elevation data is tremendous to these partners across all sectors.
Estimates by the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (Dewberry, 2012), indicate a complete
national 3D Elevation collection would result in an estimated annual economic benefit of $690 million.
In addition, nationwide topographic maps produced by the USGS remain a critical part of many business
processes and applications across the Country, particularly for hunting and outdoor recreation; wildfire
management and suppression; aerial navigation and safety; and natural hazards mitigation and recovery.

Stakeholders and Federal, State, tribal, and local partners use USGS hydrography data and hydrographic
mapping products to perform water quantity and quality mapping; reference hydrologic features and
observations for more accurate flood risk management; and report on surface water conditions. The
combined National Hydrography and Watershed Datasets (NHD and WBD)—an intelligent network map
of surface water—results in an estimated annual economic benefit of nearly $538 million.

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Secretariat supports Interior and OMB’s leadership and
coordination responsibilities in achieving efficiencies across the Federal government. The FGDC also
achieves management efficiencies in partnership with State, local, and tribal governments and non-
Federal partners in the wide-spread use of geospatial data and technologies and helps civil and defense
agencies achieve situational awareness of the natural and built infrastructure.

The 2018 budget request supports:
• High-resolution, three-dimensional elevation mapping support for the Nation's infrastructure and
public safety.
• High-resolution interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IfSAR) and topographic mapping for
Alaska supporting transportation, hydrology, infrastructure modernization, and aviation safety.
• High-resolution hydrographic mapping for the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for public
safety, water stewardship, and hazard mitigation.

The 2018 budget request also supports The National Map, but delays acquisition of light detection and
ranging (lidar) data for nationwide coverage and eliminates geospatial research that drives technological
innovation and efficiency. In 2016, The National Map distributed approximately 13.6 million files of
elevation, hydrography, orthoimagery, and other related topographic information. These widely used
geospatial data and related Web services help the public and private sectors to implement a wide range of
activities, including public safety, utilities management, precision agriculture, road and bridge
construction, aviation and national security.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-10 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

Examples of Mission Critical Applications:

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Federal Geographic Data Committee Functions (-$2,700,000/-7 FTE): This eliminates
Interior sponsorship of several Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) subcommittees and projects,
but retains core FGDC committee support, stakeholder engagement, and strategic planning support.
Reductions and eliminations include activities supporting the Federal Geospatial Platform; the National
Geospatial Advisory Committee; collaborating with Federal and non-Federal partners on geospatial
standards; and supporting the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

Eliminate Geospatial Research and Reduce 3DEP Technical Support (-$5,100,000/-19 FTE): This
reduces support for technical operations and delivery functions within the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP),
National Hydrography and Watershed Boundary Datasets, and US Topo Programs, including Alaska
mapping. The reduction would eliminate the Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science
and its associated research grants.

Reduce 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) Functions (-$3,000,000/0 FTE): This defers completion of
3DEP national coverage by five years, delaying until 2033 the complete acquisition of light detection and
ranging (lidar) data to enhance landscape-scale, three-dimensional maps for the Nation. The reduction
results in a significant loss of leveraged partner funds

Reduce National Geospatial Program Operations (-$575,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish
the NGP's ability to execute its core activities including delaying major mapping efforts to produce and
make available highly-accurate topographic, hydrographic, and geologic data and maps for the American
public through the National Map and Federal Geospatial Platform. This reduces equipment, services, and
work with Federal, State, and industry partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-11
Core Science Systems

Science Collaboration

Users throughout the Federal Government, including those in the U.S. Department of the Interior, the
U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense; the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the National Guard Bureau; States, Tribes, the private sector, and other organizations collaborate on,
produce, and use NGP geospatial data, derived topographic map products, and web services to support
their decision-making and operational activities.

The 3DEP Executive Forum facilitates executive dialog and collaboration on strategies to implement and
sustain 3DEP for the benefit of its Federal stakeholders and the broader community. The Forum is
comprised of representatives from 14 Federal agencies that support 3DEP goals for nationwide data
coverage.

The Alaska Mapping Executive Committee meets regularly to coordinate on critical Alaska topographic
mapping activities. Executives from 15 Federal agencies and the State of Alaska are combining efforts to
acquire new digital elevation, hydrography, transportation, shoreline and geopositional data for Alaska,
and create a new digital topographic map series for the State.

The USGS offers world-class science capabilities to support the Department of Defense (DOD). Since
2003, the USGS has partnered with the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) to facilitate science
support in the event of a major natural disaster. One key product that now supports USNORTHCOM and
other DOD partners during a natural disaster is the USGS topographic map or US Topo, which the USGS
provides to DOD through a partnership with the Defense Logistics Agency. This new capability enables
immediate requests and delivery of this USGS resource to the impacted area.

The NGP and the U.S. Forest Service share data for mapping purposes to create more consistent and
current products. This collaboration reduces costs for map production and results in more consistent
products.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-12 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

Core Science Systems
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Core Science Systems $111,550 $111,339 $1,021 $0 -$19,391 $92,969 -$18,370
FTE 456 456 0 0 -58 398 -58
National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping
Program $24,397 $24,351 $244 $0 -$2,314 $22,281 -$2,070
FTE 109 109 0 0 -5 104 -5

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program is $22,281,000 and
104 FTE, and includes a program change of -$2,314,000 and -5 FTE from the 2017 Annualized
Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $244,000.

Overview

The vision of the USGS's National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) is to create an
integrated, three-dimensional, digital geologic framework of the United States and its territories to
address the Nation’s changing resource needs. The NCGMP's mission is to characterize, interpret, and
disseminate the geologic framework model of the Nation through geologic mapping and derivative
research, in order to support the responsible use of land, water, energy, and minerals, and to mitigate the
impact of geologic hazards on society thereby facilitating national security and economic growth through
informed Earth resource management.

The NCGMP advances the understanding of the nature of the materials—rocks, energy resources,
water—and processes such as characterization, containment, and flow. This nationwide program of
geologic research produces abundant, high-impact peer-reviewed journal articles annually on surficial and
bedrock geology, mapping, and multidimensional models that provide fundamental research and data for
assessing energy, mineral and water resources.

Physical infrastructure (e.g., transportation, energy, and telecommunications networks) requires raw
materials for new construction and maintenance of existing projects as well as understanding of ground
stability and subsurface rock competency for siting infrastructure, urban development and land-use
projects such as power or waste disposal facilities. In addition, improvements to infrastructure would

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-13
Core Science Systems

require current, accurate geologic maps to locate water, oil and gas, and aggregate and mineral resources,
many of which are found within or near the margins of sedimentary basins. These maps aid the Nation in
locating and developing necessary resources; assessing and protecting groundwater quality; and safely
siting infrastructure projects such as solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities.

Geologic maps and frameworks define the location and subsurface shape of aquifers, how much water
aquifers can store, and parameters for water movement through the ground. Geologic mapping products
also provide critical information for predicting and mitigating natural hazards, such as landslides,
sinkholes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes. In 2014, geologic maps were critical tools used in
emergency response situations such as major landslides that had human casualties in Washington State
and western Colorado. Three-dimensional geologic maps are the basis for estimating ground-shaking
hazards from future earthquakes as well, and are thus critical for safely siting homes, buildings, and
physical infrastructure.

The American public relies on geologic mapping methods and data to remain informed, healthy, and safe.
Three-dimensional geologic mapping and frameworks (models) help to create private sector jobs, fuel
American economic opportunities, and support a 21st century economy based on energy, minerals, and oil
and gas resource assessments. Understanding the Earth’s composition, structure, and history derived
from geologic maps lies at the forefront of basic and applied geologic research that responds directly to
economic and societal needs. Geologic maps are widely recognized as an essential source of foundational
knowledge for economic prosperity, national security, and environmental quality. Accurate geologic
maps and three-dimensional geologic framework models are essential for identifying mineral, oil, and gas
resources, finding and protecting groundwater, guiding earthquake and flood hazard mitigation,
identifying landslide and post-wildfire hazards, and guiding transportation and other infrastructure
planning. One report estimated that geologic maps return up to 39 times their cost to the American public
(see "Economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky," Bhagwat and Ipe, 2000).

The 2018 budget request supports:
• NCGMP programs (Federal: FEDMAP; State: STATEMAP; and universities: EDMAP) would
continue to produce, at a reduced rate, the geologic maps, three-dimensional geologic models,
interpretive studies, and scientific publications that support energy, mineral, and oil and gas
assessments, seismic analyses, and natural hazard mitigation.
• Surface and subsurface three-dimensional geologic mapping for energy, mineral, and oil and gas
assessments, seismic analyses, and natural hazard mitigation.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-14 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

Examples of Mission Critical Applications:

3D Geologic
Mapping
identifies
water-
bearing
zones to
protect
public water
supply and
3D Geologic Mapping identifies natural water
hazards and provides key information quality. 3D Geologic Mapping enables States to
on energy and mineral resources. plan for the development of major
infrastructure and the expansion of urban
corridors.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Functions (-$2,070,000/-5 FTE): This
reduces FEDMAP, STATEMAP, and EDMAP funds proportionately based on the algorithm defined by
the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 and subsequent reauthorizations. This would eliminate
earthquake seismic hazard assessments in central Virginia impacting the USGS's ability to construct
seismic hazard maps based upon the latest geologic maps for the central Virginia area. The USGS would
reduce the number of geologic maps produced for the Nation; the loss of matching (1:1 match) partner
funds from the State Geological Surveys through the STATEMAP grants program doubles this loss. This
reduction would also affect EDMAP grants to colleges and universities.

Reduce National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Operations (-$244,000/-0 FTE): This
reduction would diminish the NCGMP's ability to execute its core activities including significantly
delaying the number of geologic maps produced to current standards for the Nation. This reduces
equipment, services, and work with Federal, State, and university partners.

Science Collaboration

In 1992, the 102nd United States Congress declared, “geologic maps are the primary database for virtually
all applied and basic earth-science applications.” Consequently, all three components of the NCGMP—
FEDMAP, STATEMAP and EDMAP—share the common responsibility identified in the National
Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, to collaborate and expedite the production of a geologic map database for
the Nation applicable to land-use management, assessment, and utilization and (or) conservation of
natural resources, groundwater management, and environmental protection. The NCGMP has over 20
years of successful cooperation among Federal (FEDMAP), State (STATEMAP), and university
(EDMAP) partners to deliver digital geologic maps to the public. Each of these three components has a
unique role, yet all work cooperatively to select and map high-priority areas for new geologic maps.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-15
Core Science Systems

Annually, the NCGMP works cooperatively with approximately 45 different State Geological Surveys
and 20-25 different universities throughout the Country.

Additionally, the NCGMP shares responsibility with other USGS programs for identification and
mitigation of natural or human-induced geologic hazards to minimize property loss, providing for the
health and safety of the general public and facilitating the security and economic growth of the Nation.
Collaboratively produced geologic maps and models aid America in locating and developing aggregate,
mineral, energy and water resources; assessing and protecting groundwater quality; and safely siting solid
and hazardous waste disposal facilities.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-16 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

Core Science Systems
Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Core Science Systems $111,550 $111,339 $1,021 $0 -$19,391 $92,969 -$18,370
FTE 456 456 0 0 -58 398 -58
Science Synthesis, Analysis
and Research Program $24,299 $24,253 $202 $0 -$5,702 $18,753 -$5,500
FTE 90 90 0 0 -27 63 -27

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for the Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program is $18,753,000 and
63 FTE, and includes a program change of -$5,702,000 and -27 FTE from the 2017 Annualized
Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding level includes a fixed costs change of $202,000.

Overview

The Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program (SSAR) provides analysis and synthesis of
scientific data and information, and long-term preservation of scientific data and library collections. This
program strives to accelerate research and decision making through data science, information delivery,
advanced computing, biodiversity analytics, and preserved geoscientific assets. SSAR ensures that data
are strategically managed, integrated, and available to decision makers and others as they focus on issues
associated with Earth and life science processes.

The SSAR Program includes the Core Science Analytics, Synthesis and Libraries program (CSAS&L);
the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP); the Core Research
Center; and the J.W. Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis (Powell Center). These activities provide
an integrated suite of critical data, services and applications to empower USGS and its collaborators to
effectively manage, steward and analyze key scientific priorities.

To meet the needs of supporting improvements to the Nation’s infrastructure, the USGS must also focus
on reinvesting in its infrastructure—specifically developing an Advanced Research Computing
Framework. The USGS and the Core Science Systems Mission Area would maintain its high
performance computing (HPC) efforts to execute complex computational models required to quickly and
efficiently process the high-resolution elevation datasets. High-performance computing is also necessary
for computational efficiency when integrating the National Geospatial Program's elevation and

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-17
Core Science Systems

hydrography data, and the National Cooperative Geologic Program's three-dimensional geologic
datasetsall of which inform resource availability (building materials), engineering requirements, and
safety for the pursuit of improving and developing the Nation’s infrastructure.

America's tremendous asset base of public land and other protected open areas is critical for conservation,
recreation, and public health applications. These include national parks, forests, wildlife refuges,
monuments and wilderness; State parks and wildlife management areas; county open space and city
parks; land trust preserves, conservation easements, marine protected areas and many other lands.
Together, these include more than 150,000 places covering three billion acres, managed by thousands of
public agencies and non-profit organizations that serve current and future generations. A complete and
current Geographic Information System (GIS) database of these assets is a critical tool to achieve
organizational missions across jurisdictions. The Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-
US) geodatabase is one of the essential data collections to organize and assess the long-term protection of
biodiversity in the United States, and required to assess the conservation status of native vertebrate
species and natural land cover types, while facilitating the application of this information to land
management activities.

Federal, State, and local governments work together to provide public and protected lands for the benefit
of all Americans, which are critical for conservation, recreation, and public health and safety. Making
wise decisions about the management of these open spaces and the natural resources they provide requires
timely and accurate data and information. The USGS provides integrated and synthesized biogeographic
data and information on protected lands and waters, species and habitats, and the dynamics that impact
those trust resources over time. Through data science, high-performance computing and technologies,
and open scientific data requirements, USGS develops new methods and tools that help inform and
engage citizens, launch and empower business, and help governments manage and conserve America’s
public land assets.

Standards-based practices for preserving and sharing data and collections inform geoscientific
interpretation and directly benefit discovery of new natural resources, hazard mitigation, infrastructure
development, and public safety. Across the Nation, vast collections of valuable geologic materials and
data, collected over many decades, are managed by State geological surveys, the USGS, and other Interior
bureaus. The USGS provides technical and financial assistance to advance preservation, exposure, and
reuse of these valuable geoscientific artifacts. Prior to these collaborative preservation efforts, countless
geological samples and data were rarely used because their existence was unknown, resulting in
potentially limited interpretations or expensive re-collection costs of equivalent materials and data.

The 2018 budget request supports:
• High performance computing capabilities that enable more timely data analysis; reduce wait time
for available central processing units (CPU); and assist in the public release of USGS science data
and research results.
• Data and tools from the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) used in land
stewardship; effective siting for renewable energy facilities and other infrastructure; and fuel and
fire management studies. The USGS would also prioritize providing actionable intelligence to
U.S. Geological Survey
K-18 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

decision makers on the most prevalent and severe threats to America's important habitats through
the National Biogeographic Map.
• Critical biogeographic data and systems needed to conduct scientific analyses of issues involving
land management and conservation practice for government, academic, and commercial sectors.
• Virtual access to unique collections; improvement of discovery and access tools; organization of
remaining collections; and maintenance of some online access to subscription research journals.
• Geoscientific physical samples (rocks and core samples) and data preserved to aid in future
energy and mineral exploration, and geologic assessments.

Examples of Mission Critical Applications:

2018 Program Changes

Reduce USGS Library Functions (-$3,000,000/-20 FTE): This eliminates public access to USGS
Library locations. The USGS would place all collections into a dark archive; reduce online journal
subscriptions by at least fifty percent; and close libraries in three, or possibly all four locations (Menlo
Park, CA; Flagstaff, AZ; Lakewood, CO; and Reston, VA).

Reduce Biogeographic Science Functions (-$2,500,000/-7 FTE): This reduction would eliminate all
national species occurrence data (e.g., species distributions) and systems, which impacts the USGS's
ability to produce and maintain these data. The USGS would also eliminate contracts and partnership
agreements with USGS Science Centers, universities, and other Federal agencies for assembling and
integrating data on species distribution across the Nation. This would result in other Federal agencies,
State, and local governments spending additional funding to individually assemble and integrate non-
standard species data. This reduction also eliminates the biodiversity hub of EcoINFORMA
(Ecoinformatics-based Open Resources and Machine Accessibility).

Reduce Science Synthesis, Analysis, and Research Program Operations (-$202,000/0 FTE): This
reduction would diminish the SSAR Program's ability to execute its core activities including the
production and maintenance of species occurrence data; decreasing bibliographic research services; and

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-19
Core Science Systems

limiting access to online journals—services essential to all of the USGS's mission areas and Interior
science. This reduction would also reduce the ability to maintain and invest in information technologies
that are essential to the core mission work of the program.

Science Collaboration

The USGS's High-Performance Computing has supported more than two million computing jobs and 12.5
million CPU hours to advance USGS and Interior science, land management, and big data
challenges. Research related to increasing sturgeon larval gene pools, automatic detection of burned
areas, improvements in the processing of airborne electromagnetic surveys, aiding in data visualization
and processing for multi-scenario volcanic ash plume modeling, and several large-scale species
population viability assessments have all been supported. The USGS will continue to establish
interagency partnerships with leading supercomputing organizations such as the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for HPC. These partnerships allow the
USGS to establish on-demand, specialized computing capability that can be expanded through these
collaborations when demands outpace in-house capacity. In addition to DOE and NSF, partners include
many Interior bureaus and universities.

The PAD-US informs critical decisions in habitat management, recreation, public health, and wildfire
planning and response by groups such as the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and National Wildfire Coordinating Group. PAD-US is the cornerstone data asset of the
North American Intergovernmental Committee on Cooperation for Wilderness and Protected Area
Conservation, forming a basis for informing conservation policies at the international level. The accuracy
and accessibility of PAD-US make it one of the vital engines behind scientific analysis of issues
involving land management and conservation practice for government, academic, commercial, and non-
profit science.

The Core Research Center
(CRC), located in the
Denver Federal Center,
houses rock cores and
samples from 63,000
wells representing over
242 million linear feet of
subsurface rock strata
from 36 States. The CRC
is heavily used by both the private and public sector. In 2016, 57 percent of the CRC users represented
industry. The CRC's geologic samples provide an invaluable archive for oil, gas, and mineral
exploration; infrastructure development; and water resource management. As new technologies become
available (e.g., hydrofracturing), industry researchers are able to revisit reservoirs that were once
considered “tight” or depleted and reevaluate the potential for further oil and gas production by re-
analyzing archived rock cores. Mining professionals analyze existing, ore rich rock cores to determine
the value of pursuing extraction. Construction of buildings, bridges, and dams across the United States

U.S. Geological Survey
K-20 2018 Budget Justification
Core Science Systems

requires a comprehensive understanding of the rocks that lie below the surface to ensure these structures
will remain stable, steady, and functional for years to come. Researchers from the USGS, State water
resources departments, water conservation boards, water districts, and water consulting businesses use
cores and cuttings to obtain detailed geologic and hydrologic data for aquifers and subsurface structures.
The CRC provides a wealth of resources to support natural resource exploration, infrastructure
development and water resource management by both the public and private sectors.

The NGGDPP supports the preservation, modernization, and exposure of physical geoscience samples
and data managed by State geological surveys and Interior bureaus. Many geoscientific assets, collected
over decades, remain in analog format, including paper records and reports, data logs, photographs, field
notebooks and maps. The preservation, digitization, and public exposure of these unique and
irreplaceable materials via the Internet promotes their discovery and further research, and saves resources
by precluding the need for recollection efforts in remote and potentially, no longer accessible areas. The
financial and technical assistance provided by the NGGDPP enables States to engage in preservation
activities that they otherwise may not be able to complete, and can result in significant economic benefits
to the States (e.g., hazard prevention, natural resource development, etc.).

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification K-21
Core Science Systems

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
K-22 2018 Budget Justification
Science Support
Science Support

Science Support
USGS science support enables our
employees to be successful and serve the
American people.
U.S. Capitol Building,
front-west view

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Science Support $105,611 $105,410 $1,082 $0 -$17,124 $89,368 -$16,042
FTE 509 509 0 0 -145 364 -145
Administration and
Management $81,981 $81,825 $944 $0 -$13,390 $69,379 -$12,446
FTE 451 451 0 0 -140 311 -140
Information Services $23,630 $23,585 $138 $0 -$3,734 $19,989 -$3,596
FTE 58 58 0 0 -5 53 -5

Summary of Program Changes

Request Component Fixed
($000's) FTE Costs Page
Administration and Management -13,390 -140 +944 L--7
Reduce Administration and Management Services -12,446 -140 L--9
Reduce Administration and Management Operations -944 0 L--9
Information Services -3,734 -5 +138 L--11
Reduce Information Services Program -3,596 -5 L--11
Reduce Information Services Operations -138 0 L--12
Total Program Change -17,124 -145 +1,082

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 budget request for Science Support is $89,368,000 and 364 FTE, and includes a program
change of-$17,124,000 and -145 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $1,082,000.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification L-1
Science Support

Overview

The Science Support Activity provides the functions that make it possible to conduct USGS science. The
Science Support Activity provides business and information services and systems including acquisitions
and grants; finance; internal controls; communications; budget; monitoring and evaluation of science
quality and integrity; education; information assurance; Information Management and Technology (IMT)
services; and human capital, each of which are crucial to conducting quality science. Science Support
also includes the executive leadership and management that provide guidance, direction, and oversight for
all USGS science activities.

For 2018, the Science Support Activity seeks to sustain the USGS science mission by providing the
essential foundation and structure to conduct world-class science and allow implementation of support
activities that would advance the USGS science mission. The essential support functions and services
provided by the Administration and Management and Information Services subactivities form the
foundation for the USGS science mission. The breadth of responsibilities funded include purchasing
scientific equipment and field supplies; developing science agreements with partners; contracting for
support scientists and researchers; safety training; hazardous waste management; strategic planning;
succession planning; hiring and staffing; protecting science data assets; providing reliable and robust
Information Management Technology (IMT) infrastructure, collaboration and connectivity; developing
applications; and employee development and training.

Program Performance

Communications and Public Outreach – The Office of Communication and Publishing (OCAP)
coordinated 41 congressional briefings during 2016 on key issues including harmful algal bloom, induced
seismicity, natural disaster preparedness, climate and land use change, ecosystem impacts, and water
quality and availability. The OCAP prepared witnesses for six hearings and conducted more than 80
courtesy visits to congressional offices. The USGS social media efforts in 2016 resulted in more than
547,000 Twitter followers and 437,724 Facebook followers. The OCAP also responded to more than
14,400 ASK USGS phone calls and 16,500 email inquiries ranging from a variety of topics including
hazards, water, biology, and mapping.

Energy Efficiency – In 2016, the USGS reached its Fleet Green House Gas (GHG) reduction goal and
continued to improve utilization data collection and reporting. The Office of Management Services
(OMS) provides ongoing guidance and training to field staff regarding utilization, work orders, and
reallocation of vehicle expense funds to improve overall fleet data collection. The USGS Eco Action
Plan identified areas where improvement in fleet GHG reduction is needed, and promotes the use of
alternative fuel. The USGS will continue its efforts in reduction of 2017 GHG emissions with timely
disposal of less fuel efficient vehicles, declared as excess or unserviceable, while maintaining a 95
percent alternative fuel vehicle rate for new acquisitions.

U.S. Geological Survey
L- 2 2018 Budget Justification
Science Support

Employee Safety – The USGS continues to lead Interior with the lowest accident rates of bureaus of
equal size or larger, attributable to a focus on establishing organizational accountability through adoption
of formal performance metrics and customer surveys that ensure success in achieving Department of the
Interior (Interior) Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) strategic plan and outcomes. The USGS metrics
are supplemented with initiatives to increase supervisor and employee awareness and implementation of
safety and health requirements, such as through Physical Hazard Analysis (PHA) that allows all
employees to identify hazards and mitigation measures and required OSH training associated with their
job activities and tasks. Educational efforts will also continue in 2017, by conducting over 25 classroom
courses for more than 100 Collateral Duty Safety Program Coordinators to increase their knowledge,
skills, and abilities in support of supervisors and employees.

Science Education – The Youth and Education in Science (YES) Program helped to train nearly 1,100
young scientists through internships, partnerships, and hires. These young scientists contributed to all
mission areas while developing workforce skills. The USGS scientists worked directly with over 400,000
students and teachers, in addition to 273,000 educators that utilized the USGS website as an educational
resource. The USGS is also working in partnership with the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Graduate Internship Program to expand opportunities for NSF Graduate Fellows to enhance their
professional development by engaging in mission-related research experiences with the USGS.

Strategic Planning and Change Management Role – The USGS Organizational Development (OD)
program office serves as experts in effective and efficient strategic planning processes and change
management. In 2016, at least 75 percent of OD program work consisted of leading and facilitating
change and strategic science planning, as well as tactical and operational planning for organizations in
each mission area and regional office. The OD expert guidance and process ensures that management and
science teams maximize their time and efforts using appropriate planning methods and tools, while
generating a thorough and quality product that ensures support and ownership in execution.

In 2017, the USGS is examining organizational alignment and structures to maximize efficiencies and
best use of resources. The Organizational Development program will provide a key role in leading and
facilitating complex decision-making meetings, setting priorities, and ensuring management teams
effectively navigate consensus on realignment, reorganizing, and maximizing resources. The OD office
can provide a systematic and efficient planning and reorganization process for USGS.

Technology Transfer – The Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 USC 3710 as amended, requires each
Federal laboratory having 200 or more full-time scientific, engineering and related technical positions to
establish a research and technology application function. Within the USGS, this function is housed in the
Office of Policy and Analysis where staff service USGS Science Centers and offices throughout the
Country. USGS science and research contributes to a broad range of valuable collaborative projects in
the private and academic sector.

During 2016, the USGS increased its technology transfer activity both in terms of number of
collaborations and projects and reimbursable funding. The USGS executed 8 new Cooperative Research
and Development Agreements (CRADA) and 498 new Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA), making
for 29 active CRADAs and 829 active TAAs. The USGS had 28 specialty analytical laboratory services
U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification L-3
Science Support

providing unique capabilities to the United States, private sector partners, and academia. New facility use
agreements executed during 2016 totaled more than 180. The USGS has an active patent portfolio that
has more than 40 patents on inventions ranging from sensors to biotechnology improvements.
Workforce Planning – The USGS recently released and implemented the USGS Workforce Plan 2015 –
2020 to help provide supervisors, managers, and leaders with strategies and tools to attract, develop,
retain, and manage a workforce with the right skillset and characteristics to accomplish the bureau’s
mission within a complex and changing operational environment.

Enhancing Science Collaboration through Information Management and Technology – The USGS
continues to advance its use of cloud technology through its Cloud Hosting Solutions (CHS) program.
CHS provided the USGS science with a platform that supports on-demand delivery of IT resources and
enabled data driven science. During 2016, CHS migrated 20 applications into operation/production and
test/development cloud environments as well as deployed a sandbox environment that provides a safe
environment for customers to test cloud services. In 2017, CHS is migrating additional science
applications to the cloud environment and deploying tools that will enhance USGS science data. Training
in virtualization and alternative application tools was also provided to numerous USGS Science Centers
during 2016, along with the establishment of the USGS Strategic Laboratory Committee, highlighting the
bond between science and science support. Connectivity is key to sharing scientific data and, during
2016, Information Services collaborated on a cost-efficient network connection between the USGS
Science Centers in Rolla, MO, and Denver, CO, enabling the successful transmission of high volume lidar
data. Working collaboratively with the science communities, the USGS also processed 200 Freedom of
Information Act requests that shared important scientific information with the public.

Managing Information Management and Technology Resources – In 2016, Information Services
worked jointly with the USGS Science Centers to develop a draft Federal Information Technology
Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) plan. The plan’s success was recognized by Interior as a model and
has provided the platform for the development of implementation processes in 2017. Improvements
include capturing planned IMT acquisition, regardless of amount, through a bureau-wide operating plan
and testing tracking of IMT expenditures with flags and codes in the financial system. Information
Services formed a bureau-wide collaboration team to develop the plans and ensure stakeholder buy-in.
The plan improves IMT portfolio alignment with the current management structure, tracks IMT
acquisitions and staff, formalizes delegated responsibilities and provides for the certification of IMT
accountability by Bureau leadership, which strengthens executive governance of IMT policies and
investments.

Protecting USGS Data Assets – In 2016, Information Services continued to provide enterprise-wide
services, which protect the integrity of systems, applications and data as well as ensure reliable and
continual access to resources. The USGS implemented controls across mission areas to secure IT systems
from misuse, unauthorized access, and unofficial data modification. During this period, Information
Services assessed 100 security controls associated with 165 assessment objectives for all USGS IT
systems in support of the Annual Assurance Statement. Information Services also coordinated and

U.S. Geological Survey
L- 4 2018 Budget Justification
Science Support

tracked the remediation of over 560,000 vulnerabilities and deployed security software to over 13,500
USGS systems.

Strategic Actions Planned through 2018

The essential support functions and services provided by the Science Support activity form the foundation
for the USGS science mission. Achieving high-quality science research depends on having the required
resources, including scientific equipment and supplies, facilities and laboratories, scientists, technicians
and researchers; information technology security, infrastructure and information management; partnership
agreements and contracts in place; and the management processes to control and best utilize these
resources. The organizations funded by the Science Support Activity will contribute to a robust national
scientific community.

In 2017, the Science Support Activity will conduct assessments and implement succession planning to
align strategic goals and human resources to achieve the USGS mission; develop distance learning
courses for training all staff on technology transfers to enable USGS researchers to partner with the
private sector, leverage resources, and share ideas in a protected environment; increase partnerships with
the Public Land Corps groups as a pathway to intern hiring to offer the Nation’s youth unparalleled
experiences to conserve the nature of America; implement a cybersecurity assessment and authorization
restructuring plan to increase efficiencies in compliance reporting, data categorization granularity, and
increase protection of scientific data; execute the DHS cybersecurity continuous monitoring and
diagnostics program elements to enhance the protection of the USGS science data and assets; and develop
processes and guidance for the full bureau-wide implementation of FITARA.

In 2018, the Science Support Activity will decrease its level of support to science centers. The 2018
budget request will delay timeliness of awarding stand-alone acquisition and financial assistance
transactions and result in the USGS not being able to adapt solutions to emerging priorities and
requirements; delay the validation and review of cybersecurity requirements and efforts to move to the
cloud; eliminate or diminish automation initiatives that may increase the risks for internal controls,
improper payments, and delinquent debts; and could impact scientific integrity principals. In addition, the
Office of Human Capital would continue to experience longer processing times, and even further miss the
80-day mandated hiring model by the Office of Personnel Management. The 2018 budget request may
reduce USGS’s ability to keep up with changes in the workforce, which now requires more high-tech
skillsets and tools, and deliver science information and data to policy and decision makers.

A significant portion of Science Support funds are required departmental costs for program activities and
enterprise-wide systems. The costs for activities in the Department’s Working Capital Fund central and
direct billings to the bureaus are not estimated to decrease, which will result further reduction to Science
Support program dollars.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification L-5
Science Support

The Science Support activities have an important impact on operations throughout the Nation. The
following map highlights the States (in blue) in which Science Support has a presence; these offices
provide Human Resources, Acquisitions, Facilities, and other vital support to the USGS science mission.

States with a Science Support Presence

U.S. Geological Survey
L- 6 2018 Budget Justification
Science Support

Science Support
Administration and Management

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Science Support $105,611 $105,410 $1,082 $0 -$17,124 $89,368 -$16,042
FTE 509 509 0 0 -145 364 -145
Administration
and Management $81,981 $81,825 $944 $0 -$13,390 $69,379 -$12,446
FTE 451 451 0 0 -140 311 -140

The 2018 budget request for the Administration and Management is $69,379,000 and 311 FTE, a program
change of -$13,390,000 and -140 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This
funding level includes a fixed costs change of $944,000.

Overview

The Administration and Management Subactivity provides bureau-wide leadership and direction;
establishes organizational vision, mission, goals and scientific priorities; develops and enforces
standards for scientific rigor and integrity; plans, obtains and manages necessary resources, including
people, budget authority, facilities and equipment; provides resource management systems;
implements statutory and regulatory requirements and monitors and enforces compliance; and
communicates the USGS mission and science to Congress and the public. Administration and
Management is comprised of the following areas:

The USGS Office of the Director performs chief executive officer and chief operating officer
responsibilities.

The science mission area Associate Directors establish program direction and goals, and serve as
science advisors to the Director in their respective program areas.

The Regional Directors exercise line management responsibility for the science centers and
implement science projects on the landscape.

The Office of Budget, Planning, and Integration (BPI) secures funding resources needed for the
USGS to perform its mission goals, facilitates information sharing internally and externally, provides
oversight of the internal controls process and the USGS Working Capital Fund, and provides in-depth

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification L-7
Science Support

analysis of USGS goals, strategies, performance and budget data for the USGS to understand,
anticipate, and respond to the changing demands resulting from public policy decisions and science
needs.

The Office of Communications and Publishing (OCAP) guides and conducts public affairs, legislative
relations, customer service, external stakeholder, and internal communications and provides publishing
and Web development services. The Science Publishing Network (SPN) provides services including
technical writing, editing, design, and illustration to prepare scientific reports and maps for publication.
This information is widely used across the Nation by members of Congress and their staff, other natural
resource planners and managers, recreational hunters and hikers, emergency response officials, and the
media.

The Office of Science Quality and Integrity (OSQI) establishes and implements bureau-wide standards
for scientific integrity and quality and administers offices and programs for ethics; fundamental science
practices; research evaluation, review, and recognition; and tribal relations, including the USGS Office of
Ethics, the Youth and Education in Science program, the Mendenhall Postdoctoral Fellowships, the
Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) and Equipment Development Grade Evaluation (EDGE) program, the
Scientist Emeritus program, and the Office of Tribal Relations.

The Office of International Programs (OIP) enhances the USGS scientific mission by providing
opportunities for USGS scientists to interact with scientific partners abroad and extend research and
investigations to other countries. The OIP supports the development and conduct of a broad spectrum of
international activities involving scientific cooperation and assistance in geological, hydrological,
biological, and geospatial research and scientific investigations. The OIP provides guidance and
representation to domestic and international agencies and organizations in matters pertaining to
international scientific activities of the USGS.

The Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity (DEO) develops policies and procedures, administers
the federally mandated EEO and Diversity related programs, facilitates early resolution of discrimination
complaints, and develops guidelines to ensure proper implementation of Equal Opportunity laws and
regulations. DEO staff chair the USGS Diversity Council, coordinate outreach and recruitment events
focused on minorities with the various mission areas, and develop and submit required/mandatory
reporting on EEO Complaints and Diversity. The office is also responsible for ensuring the USGS
provides reasonable accommodations to employees/applicants with disabilities.

The Office of Administration (OA) establishes policies, manages, coordinates, provides oversight
and conducts operations in the areas of accounting and fiscal services, general services, security,
safety and occupational health, acquisitions and grants, internal controls, technology transfer,
facilities and property, environmental protection, human capital programs, including human resources
and employee development. The Associate Director is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and
Designated Agency Safety and Health Official (DASHO).

U.S. Geological Survey
L- 8 2018 Budget Justification
Science Support

The Administration and Management Subactivity contributes to a robust national scientific
community and trains future scientists through youth work experiences in the USGS scientific
mission areas; maintains the Mendenhall Research Fellowship Program to a consistent high standard
for projects and researchers; manages the Publications Warehouse, which provides a comprehensive
program to make USGS publications, research results and datasets more accessible; implements Web
Reengineering in order to streamline USGS internal and external Web sites; leads workforce planning
and leadership succession planning; and implements process improvement principles to evaluate
human capital and acquisitions to increase operational efficiency and improve science mission
support.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Administration and Management (-$12,446,000/-140 FTE): A reduction to the A&M
workforce would further delay hiring, which impacts mission areas research and prohibits us from
meeting the OPM mandated 80-day hiring process. These reductions also limit strategic sourcing
initiatives and decrease the timeliness of awards by our acquisition and contract staff, directly impacting
the science, along with impacting States and universities that receive grants. In addition, these decreases
will also reduce publications of scientific reports that are widely used by decision makers, natural
resource planners, and Congress; eliminate youth outreach activities contributing directly to STEM
capabilities for the Nation; impact cooperative work with international counterparts; and reduce
technology transfers and patent programs resources, impacting our scientific inventions.

Reduce Administration and Management Operations (-$944,000/0 FTE). This reduction would
diminish A&M’s ability to execute its core activities including hiring, contracting, accounting functions,
and other activities that support the science mission of the bureau. This proposed reduction will reduce
staff training and travel, procurement of needed equipment and services, and the ability to maintain and
invest in information technology that are essential to the core mission work of the program.

Science Collaboration

The Office of Communications and Publishing developed a Water Data Dashboard in collaboration with
the Water Resources mission area to enable users to explore real-time State-based streamflow,
groundwater, and water-quality conditions and access data via a new interactive map application.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification L-9
Science Support

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
L- 10 2018 Budget Justification
Science Support

Science Support
Information Services
2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR

Science Support $105,611 $105,410 $1,082 $0 -$17,124 $89,368 -$16,042
FTE 509 509 0 0 -145 364 -145
Information
Services $23,630 $23,585 $138 $0 -$3,734 $19,989 -$3,596
FTE 58 58 0 0 -5 53 -5

The 2018 budget request for the Information Services is $19,989,000 and 53 FTE, a program change of -
$3,734,000 and -5 FTE from the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This funding level
includes a fixed costs change of $138,000.

Overview

The Information Services subactivity provides the critical IMT foundation for the USGS science mission
by implementing advances in IMT and using them to facilitate research, data gathering, analysis and
modeling, scientific collaboration, knowledge management and work processes. This subactivity funds
numerous IMT services such as the USGS information assurance program, infrastructure and computing
services, applications and customer support, and information and investment management programs. In
addition to IMT services, this subactivity also supports the Interior IMT bureau activities. Although
Information Services has been confronted with competing mission challenges resulting from cyber
security incidents and the implementation of the Federal Information and Technology Acquisition Reform
Act (FITARA), the subactivity continues to provide critical bureau-wide IMT services necessary to
support a successful and respected science organization.

2018 Program Changes

Reduce Information Services Program (-$3,596,000/-5 FTE): The 2018 budget request would limit
resources to fund cybersecurity efforts in the cloud and increases response times to requests for
cybersecurity reporting. It would also reduce collaborative and automation activities that support the
science mission and eliminates this program’s support for Open Data Initiative, Data.gov and Open
Science Initiatives, and reduces resources supporting the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)
compliance. It would reduce investment in the information infrastructure, increasing risk of system
failures and loss of science data.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification L-11
Science Support

Reduce Information Services Operations (-$138,000/0 FTE): This reduction would diminish
Information Services’ ability to execute its core activities including cybersecurity efforts in the cloud and
elongated response times to requests for cybersecurity reporting, collaborative activities and automation
activities that support the science mission of the bureau. This proposed reduction will reduce staff
training and travel, procurement of needed equipment and services, and the ability to maintain and invest
in information technology.

Science Collaboration

Information Services provides shared services with Interior, and its bureaus, by consolidating numerous
software purchases that deliver economies of scale. Information Services also functions as the service
provider of fiber optic cabling for offices within Interior and its bureaus, as well as for agencies within the
U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Labor, the General Services Administration and other Federal
agencies.

U.S. Geological Survey
L- 12 2018 Budget Justification
Facilities
Facilities

Facilities
USGS facilities enable our employees
To conduct the science required to fulfill the
USGS mission.

The Vincent E. McKelvey at
the USGS Menlo Park campus.

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Facilities $100,421 $100,230 $11,963 $0 $0 $112,193 $11,963
FTE 60 60 0 0 0 60 0
Rental Payments and
Operations & Maintenance $93,141 $92,964 $11,963 $0 $0 $104,927 $11,963
FTE 60 60 0 0 0 60 0
Deferred Maintenance and
Capital Improvement $7,280 $7,266 $0 $0 $0 $7,266 $0
FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Summary of Changes

Request Component ($000's) FTE Fixed Costs Page
Rental Payments and Operations & Maintenance 0 0 +11,963 M--5
Rent Increase 0 0
Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement 0 0 0 M--9
Total Program Change 0 0 +11,963

Summary of Budget Request

The 2018 Budget Request for Facilities is $112,193,000 and 60 FTE, level with the 2017 Annualized
Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This includes a fixed costs change of +$11,963,000.

Overview

The USGS Facilities Activity provides safe, functional workspace to accomplish the bureau’s scientific
mission with an emphasis on the mission driving facility needs. Funds support basic facility operations;

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification M-1
Facilities

security; facility maintenance in compliance with Federal, State, and local standards; and provide a safe
working environment for USGS employees, visiting partners, and customers.
Assets include property consisting of land, buildings, or other improvements permanently attached to the
land or a structure on it. Facilities typically provide space for offices, laboratories, storage, parking,
shared support for cafeterias, conference rooms,
and other common space uses. The USGS
classifies eight large research vessels as laboratory
facilities. Owned assets are usually part of a
campus, for example, the Leetown Science Center
includes all associated land, buildings, and other
structures.

The Facilities Activity is comprised of two
subactivities: Rental Payments and Operations and
Maintenance (RP and O&M), and Deferred
USGS Research Vessel (R/V) Kiyi, based in Bayfield, WI,
Maintenance and Capital Improvements (DMCI). currently operates on Lake Superior.

This Activity supports Interior’s goal of facilities improvement by tracking outcomes, such as overall
condition of buildings and structures; reduction of energy intensity by 2.5 percent annually and cost
savings initiatives through space consolidations.

The Facilities program goal is to meet bureau science needs while optimizing facility locations,
distributions, use, and to control or reduce costs. Objectives for meeting this goal are to:
• Coordinate facility planning with science planning to provide safe, high-quality workspace
aligned with science needs.
• Develop Asset Business Plans to meet asset management goals, continue annual surveys, and
cyclic condition assessments.
• Meet performance targets for improving space utilization, controlling rent and operating costs,
and releasing unneeded space.
• Reduce deferred maintenance by renovating and constructing buildings and other facilities to
replace assets otherwise no longer cost effective to operate.
• Establish an effective maintenance program at each owned facility to meet industry best practices.
• Increase co-location consistent with science program objectives.
• Achieve sustainability, energy and water reduction goals.

Facility Planning – The USGS owns 281 buildings situated on 2,157 acres. These buildings total over
130 million square feet and have a replacement value of more than $405 million. Approximately 60
percent of USGS owned buildings are over 40-years old.

Additionally, the USGS owns 354 structures with a replacement value of $129.5 million. The owned
inventory includes 10 ecological science centers; 5 ecological field and research stations; 1 land resources

U.S. Geological Survey
M-2 2018 Budget Justification
Facilities

science center—the National Center for Earth Resources Observation Science (EROS); and 15
geomagnetic, seismic and volcano observatories.
The USGS also owns eight large research vessels that have operations and maintenance costs that are
comparable to those of a USGS building. These vessels exceed 45 feet in length and perform overnight
research to support biological, water resources, and marine geology research. Five of the vessels operate
on the Great Lakes; two operate in California; and one operates in Alaska

The USGS utilizes site-specific Asset Business Plans (ABPs) that support the USGS Asset Management
Plan (AMP). The ABPs provide a framework, strategic vision, and plan of action for effective bureau
management of General Services Administration (GSA) provided space, USGS direct leases, and owned
property. These five to 10-year strategies are developed by Science Center Directors addressing specific
needs of a field unit, campus, or region including all assets reported in the Federal Real Property Profile
(FRPP). The USGS ABPs effectively address the life cycle issues and characteristics of a site’s real
property assets. ABPs implement bureau space management goals, including consolidation, co-location,
and disposal.

The USGS relies on GSA-owned and -leased buildings for nearly 63 percent of the space it occupies. The
USGS cannot influence the market-based rental rates at these sites. To reduce costs, the USGS
emphasizes improving space utilization, disposing of underutilized assets, and consolidating operations to
relinquish space to GSA. This space includes offices, laboratories, data centers, and warehouses at major
USGS centers in Reston, VA, Denver, CO, and Menlo Park, CA.

As part of the USGS Strategic Facilities Master Plan, USGS ranked facilities in terms of their mission
dependency using a tool called the Asset Priority Index. Although the largest concentrations of
employees are in GSA-controlled space in Reston, VA, Denver, CO, and Menlo Park, CA, 15 of the top
20 mission-critical assets are owned assets in other locations. These owned assets have specialized
capabilities positioned on the landscape to address specific science issues. One example of this is the
EROS Data Center (EROS), located in Sioux Falls, SD. When EROS was conceived, it was decided that
it needed to be centrally located for receiving data as Landsat satellites passed over the United States.
The EROS location eliminates the need for locating a ground station on both the west coast and the east
coast to ensure coverage of the conterminous United States.

Another example of specialized capability is the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), in Madison,
WI. The USGS maintains the only Federal high-biocontainment facility dedicated to wildlife disease
surveillance and research. Without this facility, the Nation would lose its ability to investigate the causes
of wildlife diseases and to develop management options to mitigate the devastating impacts of epidemics
such as those caused by white-nose syndrome in bats. The NWHC, a high-security infectious
disease facility that operates at Biological Safety Level 3, benefits public health because over 70 percent
of emerging human zoonotic diseases circulate in wildlife (e.g., plague, monkeypox) and benefits the
economy because nearly 80 percent of livestock diseases are shared with wildlife (e.g., avian influenza).
The USGS supports the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as the lead under the Department of
Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Response Plan, Emergency
Support Function #11 (Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex). Built in approximately 1960, the
NWHC is reaching the end of its usable life.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification M-3
Facilities

Reduce the Footprint (RTF) – Space reductions and cost savings are integral to rent and operations
management. The USGS realizes space savings with space consolidations or relocations to spaces with
lower costs. The USGS is participates actively in Interior’s Reduce the Footprint (RTF) targets and
proceeding with a Real Property Efficiency Plan. The USGS’s goals under the plan are to reduce its
footprint and costs, and move toward a 180 SF per person utilization standard. To focus on meeting these
goals, the USGS has a centralized space-action approval process and a five-year planning process for Cost
Savings and Innovation Plan (CSIP) projects. The processes include a ranking, scoring, and approval
process as well as identifying funding for CSIP/RTF projects. The USGS is prioritizing RTF projects that
have the shortest payback period and significantly reduce the Bureau’s footprint.

Maintaining America’s Heritage (MAH) is Interior’s commitment as a steward of priceless and natural
resources to preserve and maintain operational facilities and major equipment. The 2018 budget includes
$41.7 million for this effort. Of this, $7.3 million is for Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements
(DMCI), including facility projects, equipment maintenance, maintenance management, condition
assessment, and project planning. Operations and maintenance for USGS facilities is $34.4 million.

Strategic Actions Planned Through 2018

In 2018, the USGS will begin relocating non-lab personnel and functions from the GSA-owned Menlo
Park campus to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‘s Ames Research Center (NASA-
Ames) located at Moffett Field in Mountain View, CA, in order to achieve long-term space reductions
and cost savings.

In 2017 and 2018, the USGS will continue making efforts to ensure that energy reporting and Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions reporting for fully serviced building leases over 10,000 rentable square feet are
included as requirements for lessors. This is a requirement of E.O. 13693 Planning for Federal
Sustainability in the Next Decade.

The USGS will continue to focus on meeting the sustainable building and energy efficiency goals as
outlined in E.O. 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.

The USGS will also:
• Continue to reduce space and improve sustainability, including improving the space utilization at
the USGS National Center in Reston, VA, and, continue consolidation efforts related to the
Denver Federal Center and the Menlo Park campus.
• Renovate 15 additional cableways and remove 10 for public safety through DMCI funds.
• Replace obsolete observation systems and backup power capabilities at communication hubs that
provide centralized data flow through the Northern California Seismic Network and the National
Strong Motion Program.

U.S. Geological Survey
M-4 2018 Budget Justification
Facilities

Facilities
Rental Payments and Operations and Maintenance

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal Program
CR Fixed from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Annualized
Costs Changes
CR
Facilities $100,421 $100,230 $11,963 $0 $0 $112,193 $11,963
FTE 60 60 0 0 0 60 0
Rental Payments and
Operations &
Maintenance $93,141 $92,964 $11,963 $0 $0 $104,927 $11,963
FTE 60 60 0 0 0 60 0

Justification of Program Change

The 2018 budget request for Rental Payments and Operations and Maintenance is $104,927,000 and 60
FTE, level with the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR) level. This includes a fixed costs
change of +$11,963,000.

Overview

The Rental Payments (RP) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Subactivity provides the USGS with
funding needed to meet asset management goals and carry out Executive Orders (E.O.) related to Federal
space.

In 2018, the USGS projects rent and operations and maintenance costs will be $143 million, with rent
costs estimated to be $102 million and approximately $41 million to be spent on operations and
maintenance of USGS owned properties that are mission critical. Of these projected costs, 73 percent
($104.9 million) are funded through this subactivity with the remainder funded by mission areas and
reimbursable partners.

Rental payments are to GSA, other Federal sources, private lessors, and cooperators for space occupied
by the USGS. The USGS has unique facility requirements for supporting science functions and relies
heavily on GSA to meet those needs, including modern laboratory space. The USGS occupies
approximately four million square feet of rentable space in about 172 GSA buildings nationwide, making
the USGS one of the largest users of GSA space within Interior. Nearly 20 percent of USGS space is
owned; the remaining 80 percent of the USGS space is provided through GSA, direct leases with the

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification M-5
Facilities

private sector, and cooperative and interagency agreements with State and local governments,
universities, and other Federal agencies.

The Operations and Maintenance cost component provides funding for basic facility operations and
security and facility maintenance, providing a safe working environment for USGS employees, visiting
partners, and customers. Maintenance involves the upkeep of USGS owned facilities, structures and
capitalized equipment, necessary to maintain the useful life of the asset. To protect its important
resources, ongoing investments in annual and cyclic maintenance, repair, revitalization, and disposal of
assets must be considered as a part of a long-term operations and maintenance program. Operational
costs at USGS owned facilities include costs such as utilities, janitorial services, waste management, and
salaries for staff responsible for the day-to-day operations of the facility. The USGS also funds the
operations and maintenance of its research vessels from this subactivity.

The full cost of USGS rent, operations, and maintenance are only partially covered by this subactivity.
The balance is covered by science programs. In 2016, the science programs funded $12.5 million of rent
and O&M. The USGS estimates that science programs will fund $5.1 million in rent and O&M in 2017
and $5.7 in rent and O&M in 2018.

The USGS relies on GSA-owned and -leased buildings for nearly 63 percent of the space it occupies. The
USGS cannot influence the market-based rental rates at these sites. To reduce costs, the USGS
emphasizes improving space utilization, disposing of underutilized assets, and consolidating operations to
relinquish space to GSA. This space includes offices, laboratories, data centers, and warehouses at major
USGS centers in Reston, VA, Denver, CO, and Menlo Park, CA. The USGS is also working with GSA to
explore options for relocating labs located in Building 20 on Denver Federal Center (DFC), Denver, CO.

The USGS has leveraged its Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement funding to support its Cost
Savings and Innovation Plan (CSIP) footprint reduction projects allowing the USGS to reduce its
footprint by more than 765,000 RSF from 2012 through 2017. These efforts focused on three major
centers in Reston, VA, Denver, CO, and Menlo Park, CA. Each of these centers have successfully
completed major consolidation projects, reduced space requirements, actively sought co-location
opportunities and vacated more expensive space.

Menlo Park – In 2018, the USGS will relocate non-lab personnel and functions from the GSA-owned
Menlo Park campus to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‘s Ames Research Center
(NASA-Ames) located at Moffett Field in Mountain View, CA, approximately 12 miles away. This
involves moving approximately 200 non-lab personnel in early 2018. The USGS is working with NASA
to identify if cost-saving opportunities exist to move the remaining personnel, labs, special technology
capabilities, and warehouse space to Moffett Field.

Denver Federal Center Building 20 –Built in 1941, and partially renovated in 1988, Building 20 is well
past its designed lifespan and the building does not meet the needs for USGS lab space. Deteriorating
conditions jeopardize the USGS science mission. These include frequent roof leaks, inadequate building
mechanical equipment, inefficient energy usage, and disruptions to building services. The conditions

U.S. Geological Survey
M-6 2018 Budget Justification
Facilities

have a direct impact on the ability of the USGS to conduct research. The USGS is working with GSA for
a solution.

The Denver Federal center consolidation efforts included moving out of older GSA-owned building into
newer buildings more suitable for USGS functions, such as Building 25, Building 95, and Building 810.
Consolidations in 2018 will further reduce the USGS space requirement by an additional 2,700 SF.

National Center in Reston, VA – At the USGS National Center in Reston, VA, the USGS performs
building operations and maintenance under GSA delegated authority and has day-to-day control of most
space assignments. Of the approximate 1.1 million square foot (SF) facility at the National Center, the
USGS supports Interior and other agencies by providing nearly 280,000 SF (approximately 25 percent) of
released space to other Federal partners. In 2017, that will decrease to about 230,000 SF (23 percent) as
one Interior group relocates. The USGS continues to seek opportunities to consolidate functions to
improve space utilization at the National Center, including actively seeking additional Federal partners to
occupy the space.

The USGS will continue a co-location project with the Bureau of Reclamation, in Boulder City, NV.
This project, with the target completion in 2017, will reduce the rent costs by $450,000 and reduce
Interior’s footprint by 3,000 SF.

Energy Sustainability Efforts – The USGS has made great strides in reducing the energy intensity of its
owned and leased buildings. The recent E.O. 13693 Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next
Decade requires an additional 25 percent decrease from 2015 to 2025. The USGS has accomplished a 3.6
percent decrease in 2016. The USGS has completed a bureau-wide Energy Savings Performance
Contract (ESPC) study and implemented ESPCs five of its owned facilities and one at its leased and
largest energy consuming facility in Reston, VA.

Ongoing Program Activities – Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires
all Federal agencies to consider how their projects will have an effect on historic property.
Simultaneously, Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to inventory and evaluate properties
under their control to determine if they are indeed historic. Projects under facilities management usually
take the form of repair or replacement. The USGS meets these lawful requirements by evaluating its real
property portfolio through the Comprehensive Condition Assessment Program (CCAP). Condition
assessment results are then made available so project managers can determine if proposed projects will
have any impact on historical properties. As part of E.O. 13327 Federal Real Property Asset
Management, the results of the historic evaluations are transferred to Federal Real Property Reporting
through the Federal Maintenance Management System (FMMS). To date, 222 real property assets have
been evaluated to determine if they are historic. The USGS will continue to evaluate all of its properties,
which is anticipated to continue through 2021.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification M-7
Facilities

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
M-8 2018 Budget Justification
Facilities

Facilities
Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements

2016 2017 2018
Change
Internal
CR Fixed Program from 2017
Base Transfer Request
Annualized Costs Changes Annualized
Costs
CR
Facilities $100,421 $100,230 $11,963 $0 $0 $112,193 $11,963
FTE 60 60 0 0 0 60 0
Deferred
Maintenance and
Capital Improvement $7,280 $7,266 $0 $0 $0 $7,266 $0
FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Justification of Program Changes

The 2018 budget request for Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements is $7,266,000 and 0 FTE,
level with the 2017 Annualized Continuing Resolution (CR).

Overview

Deferred maintenance is maintenance and repair activity that was not performed on owned assets
(buildings, structures, and equipment) in the year it was scheduled.

The Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements (DMCI) program funds the highest priority USGS
facility and equipment requirements. Unfunded maintenance results in a backlog of deferred maintenance
needs, which was $95 million at the end of fiscal year 2016. Those deferred maintenance needs are
broken out as $80 million for USGS owned facilities and $850,000 for USGS large vessels. When USGS
is located at facilities owned by other DOI bureaus or Federal agencies, USGS will at times pay deferred
maintenance cost in lieu of rent. In 2016, these deferred maintenance cost included: $9.6 million for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services owned facilities, $4.5 million for National Park Service, and $240,000 for
other Federal agencies. Besides increasing the deferred maintenance backlog, deferring maintenance can
accelerate the rate of facilities deterioration, causing costlier future repairs and in some cases,
necessitating unplanned repairs for health, safety, or asset protection.

Annually, the USGS develops a DMCI five-year plan. The plan provides the projects of greatest need in
priority order that best support bureau missions, with focus first on critical health and safety and energy
efficiency. The bureau has undertaken an extensive effort in developing this plan, identifying projects
where the urgency of remediation and science program impact are most viable. The 2018 USGS DMCI
five-year plan includes DMCI projects and other programs and stewardship responsibilities for unique

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification M-9
Facilities

mission equipment that are funded annually through the DMCI Program, such as hazard warning
networks, river cableways, and stream gaging stations, all of which require maintenance and capital
investments to preserve their functionality.

The USGS prioritizes DMCI according to Interior-wide guidelines. The USGS five-year plans are
updated annually to focus limited resources on projects that are both mission critical and in the most need
of repair or replacement. The process emphasizes projects that involve mission critical assets in
unacceptable condition with less emphasis on non-mission critical assets. Facility Condition Index (FCI)
is an industry accepted metric used to measure to measure the condition of buildings and structures in the
USGS real property portfolio.

The condition assessment process identifies deferred maintenance needs and determines the current
replacement value of constructed assets. The condition assessment program includes annual surveys and
a cyclic process for comprehensive onsite inspections to document deferred maintenance. Interior’s Asset
Management Plan specifies that bureaus update condition assessments annually and perform
comprehensive condition assessments every five years for properties valued over $50,000. Facilities
projects reflect comprehensive evaluations conducted by independent architectural and engineering firms.
These installation-wide assessments help establish core data on the condition of USGS constructed assets.
Additionally, knowing the estimated cost of deferred maintenance and the replacement value of
constructed assets allows the USGS to use the industry standard FCI as a method of measuring facility
condition and condition changes. The condition assessment process also identifies, reports, and tracks
asbestos, environmental, and disposal liabilities of USGS. Through the asset management planning
process, the USGS identifies real property assets that are candidates for disposition. Any asset that is no
longer critical to the mission, in poor condition, or no longer cost effective to maintain is a candidate for
possible disposal.

Natural Hazards – The Northern California Seismic Network (NCSN) and National Strong Motion
Program (NSMP) have significant inventories of obsolete and failing seismic instrumentation. The aging
infrastructure stresses the ability of these networks to ensure the reliable recording of earthquake data
critical for emergency response, earthquake engineering, and Earth science research.

In 2016, the NSMP completed the deployment of the “Networms,” which has allowed the USGS to
extend the life of obsolete systems while reducing operational costs and extending the capabilities of the
older instrumentation. The USGS purchased new equipment for both the NSMP and the NCSN and
deployment of the new instrumentation is taking place in 2017, focused on the San Francisco Bay Area
for the NCSN.

In 2018, the USGS will replace obsolete science instruments in structures such as buildings, bridges,
dams, pipelines, and geotechnical arrays. Instrumented structures are a unique role of the USGS, and the
data from these locations plays a critical role in influencing the development of building codes.

Water Resources – Cableways have been used for many decades by the USGS for the measurement of
streamflow and collection of water-quality samples. The DMCI program supports the USGS
streamgaging network by restoring vital cableways to safe operation, and removing unnecessary

U.S. Geological Survey
M-10 2018 Budget Justification
Facilities

cableways that present a potential hazard to employees and to the public. These cableways reduce the
need for USGS personnel to work from dangerous highway bridges and allow the selection of sites that
offer optimum hydraulic characteristics for measuring stream discharge. Cableways consisting of a main
cable, anchors, support structures, backstays, cablecars, and other equipment are damaged and deteriorate
from weather, vandalism, or erosion. There are 792 active cableways with 39 in need of inspections or
repairs.

In 2017, the USGS plans to repair 26 cableways. In 2018, the USGS plans to repair 15 cableways and
remove ten that are unserviceable. The USGS has 60 inactive cableways awaiting removal, 81 inactive
cableways that will remain in place for possible future use, and 30 cableways are dismantled and awaiting
remediation. The estimated backlog for cableway remediation is $7.9 million.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification M-11
Facilities

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
M-12 2018 Budget Justification
USGS Working
Capital Fund
Working Capital Fund

Working Capital Fund
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Working Capital Fund (WCF) was established to allow for the
efficient financial management of the components listed below. The WCF was made available for
expenses necessary for furnishing materials, supplies, equipment, work, and services in support of USGS
programs, and as authorized by law (authorization information begins on page 3 of this section), to
agencies of the Federal Government and others. The WCF consists of four components:

1. The WCF Investment Component provides a mechanism to assist USGS managers in planning for
and acquiring goods and services that are too costly to acquire in a single fiscal year or that, due to the
nature of services provided must operate in a multi- as opposed to a single-year basis of funding.
Investments are supported by documented investment plans that include estimated
acquisition/replacement costs, a schedule of deposits, and approval of the plans, deposits and
expenditures by designated USGS officials.
• Telecommunications Investments are used for telecommunication hardware, software,
facilities, and services. Examples include replacement or expansion of automatic exchange
systems and computerized network equipment such as switches, routers, and monitoring
systems.
• Equipment Investments are used for the acquisition, replacement, and expansion of
equipment for USGS programs. Equipment may include, but is not limited to, hydrologic,
geologic, and cartographic instruments, laboratory equipment, and computer hardware and
software.
• Facilities Investments support facility and space management investment expenses for USGS
real property, including owned and leased space. Authorized investment expenses include
nonrecurring and emergency repair, relocation of a facility, and facility modernization. The
component does not include annual expenses such as rent, day-to-day operating expenses,
recurring maintenance, or utilities.
• Publications Investments are used for the preparation and production of technical publications
reporting on the results of scientific data and research. Research projects typically are three to
five years in duration, and planning the medium in which to report results occurs over the life
of the project. The Publications Investment Component provides a mechanism for establishing
an efficient, effective, and economical means of funding publications costs over the duration of
the research.

2. The WCF Fee-for-Service Component provides a continuous cycle of client services for fees
established in a rate-setting process. Fees are predicated upon both direct and indirect costs
associated with providing the services, including amortization of equipment required to provide the
services.

U.S. Geological Survey
2017 Budget Justification N-1
Working Capital Fund

• The National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) conducts chemical and biological
analyses of water, sediments, and aquatic tissue for all USGS science centers and other
customers, including other USGS mission areas, other Interior bureaus, and non-USGS
customers. The NWQL also does biological classification for these customers. NWQL
analysis services are provided on a reimbursable basis, with the price of services calculated to
cover direct and indirect costs.
• The USGS Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF) provides hydrologic instrumentation
on a fee-for-service basis. The facility provides its customers with hydrologic instruments that
can be rented or purchased, maintains a technical expertise on instrumentation, and tests and
evaluates new technologies as they become available in the marketplace.
• Bureau Laboratories – There are currently five laboratories within the Water Resources
Mission Area that perform gaseous dissolved chlorofluorocarbon measurements, environmental
microbiology analyses and isotope-ratio measurements of water, sediments, rocks, and gases
for all USGS mission areas, and for USGS customers.
• The National Training Center conducts USGS training programs. Examples include
specialized training for USGS employees, cooperators, and international participants in many
facets of Earth science, as well as computer applications, management and leadership seminars,
and various workshops.
• Research Drilling Program – The Drilling Program is operated out of two locations,
Lakewood, CO, and Las Vegas, NV. The Drilling Program provides drilling and drilling
related services to research projects across the United States. These services include
conducting exploratory drilling and obtaining geologic samples and cores in difficult
hydrogeologic environments, installation of sampling devices, monitoring wells and other sub-
surface sensors, borehole geophysical logging, and well and aquifer hydraulic testing support.

3. The GSA Buildings Delegation Component is used to manage funds received under the delegated
authority for the J.W. Powell Building and Advanced Systems Center in Reston, VA, as provided by
40 U.S.C. 121 (d) and (e) (formerly subsections 205 (d) and (e) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, and 40 U.S.C. 486 (d) and (e), respectively).
Delegated functions include building operations, maintenance, cleaning, overseeing fire and life
safety, maintaining high voltage switchgear and fire alarms, recurring repairs, minor alterations,
historic preservation, concessions, and energy management. Because of the size of the Reston
buildings and the need to expend the facility funds in a manner corresponding to GSA's no-year
funding (Federal Buildings Fund) mechanisms and the GSA National Capital Region long-range
capital improvement plan, no-year funding is a prerequisite to administering the delegation. Public
Law 104–208, Section 611, provides that, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and
thereafter, any department or agency that has delegated authority shall retain that portion of the GSA
rental payment available for operation, maintenance, and repair of the building and the funds shall
remain available until expended. This WCF component was established in 2004 to provide USGS
with this no-year flexibility.

U.S. Geological Survey
N-2 2017 Budget Justification
Working Capital Fund

Appropriation Language and Citations

Permanent authority:

1. Provided further, That, in fiscal year 1986, and thereafter, all amortization fees resulting from the
Geological Survey providing telecommunications services shall be deposited in a special fund to be
established on the books of the Treasury and be immediately available for payment of replacement or
expansion of telecommunications services, to remain available until expended.
• 43 U.S.C.50a established the Telecommunications Amortization Fund, which was displayed as
part of the Surveys, Investigations and Research appropriation from 1986 through 1990.
Beginning in 1991, the Telecommunications Amortization Fund was merged into the WCF
described in the next citation.

2. There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States a working capital fund to assist in the
management of certain support activities of the United States Geological Survey (hereafter referred to
as the "Survey"), Department of the Interior. The fund shall be available on and after
November 5, 1990, without fiscal year limitation for expenses necessary for furnishing materials,
supplies, equipment, work, facilities, and services in support of Survey programs, and, as authorized
by law, to agencies of the Federal Government and others. Such expenses may include laboratory
modernization and equipment replacement, computer operations, maintenance, and
telecommunications services; requirements definition, systems analysis, and design services;
acquisition or development of software; systems support services such as implementation assistance,
training, and maintenance; acquisition and replacement of computer, publications and scientific
instrumentation, telecommunications, and related automatic data processing equipment; and, such
other activities as may be approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

There are authorized to be transferred to the fund, at fair and reasonable values at the time of transfer,
inventories, equipment, receivables, and other assets, less liabilities, related to the functions to be
financed by the fund as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Provided, That the fund shall be
credited with appropriations and other funds of the Survey, and other agencies of the Department of
the Interior, other Federal agencies, and other sources, for providing materials, supplies, equipment,
work, and other services as authorized by law and such payments may be made in advance or upon
performance: Provided further, That charges to users will be at rates approximately equal to the costs
of furnishing the materials, supplies, equipment, facilities, and services, including such items as
depreciation of equipment and facilities, and accrued annual leave: Provided further, That all existing
balances as of November 5, 1990, from amortization fees resulting from the Survey providing
telecommunications services and deposited in a special fund established on the books of the Treasury
and available for payment of replacement or expansion of telecommunications services as authorized
by Public Law 99-190, are hereby transferred to and merged with the working capital fund, to be used
for the same purposes as originally authorized. Provided further, That funds that are not necessary to
carry out the activities to be financed by the fund, as determined by the Secretary, shall be covered
into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.

U.S. Geological Survey
2017 Budget Justification N-3
Working Capital Fund

P.L. 101-512 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991 This
authority established a Working Capital Fund account in 1991. The Telecommunications
Amortization Fund was included as part of the WCF and all balances of the Telecommunications
Amortization Fund existing at the end of 1990 were transferred to the WCF. These balances were
to be used for the same purposes as originally authorized.

P.L. 103-332 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 The
amendments that were made in this appropriations act are shown in underline in the second
citation shown above. This authority expanded the use of the Working Capital Fund to partially
fund laboratory operations and facilities improvements and to acquire and replace publication and
scientific instrumentation and laboratory equipment.

U.S. Geological Survey
N-4 2017 Budget Justification
Working Capital Fund

United States Geological Survey
Federal Funds
General and special funds:
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Program and Financing
(In millions of dollars)

Identification 2017
Code 2016 CR 2018
14-4556-0-4-306 Actual Annualized Request

Obligations by program activity:
08.01 Working Capital Fund 77 112 85

Budgetary resources:
Unobligated balance:
10.00 Unobligated balance carried forward, start of year 90 96 68
10.21 Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations 2 0 0
10.50 Unobligated balance total 92 96 68
Budget Authority:
Spending Authority from offsetting collections, disc
17.00 Collected 81 84 76
19.30 Total budgetary resources available 173 180 144
Memorandum (non-add) entries:
19.41 Unexpired unobligated balance, end of year 96 68 59

Change in obligated balances:
Obligated balance, start of year:
30.00 Unpaid obligations, brought forward, Oct 1 28 27 58
30.10 Obligations incurred, unexpired accounts 77 112 85
30.20 Outlays, Gross -76 -81 -78
30.40 Recoveries of prior year obligations -2 0 0
Obligated balance, end of year:
30.50 Unpaid Obligations, end of year (gross) 27 58 65

Budget authority and outlays, net:
Discretionary
40.00 Budget authority, gross 81 84 76
Outlays, gross:
40.10 Outlays from new discretionary authority 35 38 34
40.11 Outlays from discretionary balances 41 43 44
40.20 Outlays, gross 76 81 78
Offsets against gross budget authority and outlays:
Offsetting collections (collected) from:
40.30 Federal Sources -80 -83 -75

40.70 Budget authority, net (discretionary)
40.80 Outlays, net (discretionary) -5 -3 2
41.80 Budget authority, net (total)
41.90 Outlays, net (total) -5 -3 2

U.S. Geological Survey
2017 Budget Justification N-5
Working Capital Fund

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Balance Sheet
(In millions of dollars)

Identification Code 2015 2016
14-4556-0-4-306 Actual Actual

ASSETS:
Federal assets:
1101 Fund balances with Treasury 111 111
Investments in U.S. securities:
1106 Receivables, net
1803 Other Federal assets: Property, plant and
equipment, net 34 34
1999 Total assets 145 145

LIABILITIES:
2101 Federal liabilities: Accounts payable
2201 Non-Federal liabilities: Accounts payable 4 4
2999 Total liabilities 4 4

NET POSITION:
3300 Cumulative results of operations 141 141
3999 Total net position 141 141

4999 Total liabilities and net position 145 145

U.S. Geological Survey
N-6 2017 Budget Justification
Working Capital Fund

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Object Classification
(In millions of dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-4556-0-4-306 Actual Enacted Request

Reimbursable obligations:
Personnel compensation:
11.1 Full-time permanent 11 10 9
11.3 Other than full-time permanent 0 0 0
11.5 Other personnel compensation 1 1 1
11.9 Total personnel compensation 12 11 10

12.1 Civilian personnel benefits 4 4 3
21.0 Travel and transportation of persons 1 1 0
23.1 Rental payments to GSA 2 2 1
23.3 Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous charges 0 0 0
24.0 Printing and reproduction 0 1 0
25.2 Other services 10 19 10
Other purchases of goods and services from Government
25.3 7 17 15
Accounts
25.4 Operation and maintenance of facilities 6 3 7
25.7 Operation and maintenance of equipment 3 4 3
26.0 Supplies and materials 5 5 5
31.0 Equipment 26 42 29
32.0 Land and structures 1 3 2
99.9 Total new obligations 77 112 85

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Employment Summary

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-4556-0-4-306 Actual Enacted Request

Reimbursable:
2001 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 152 152 152

U.S. Geological Survey
2017 Budget Justification N-7
Working Capital Fund

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
N-8 2017 Budget Justification
USGS Exhibits
USGS Exhibits

United States Geological Survey

Federal Funds

General and special funds:

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

For expenses necessary for the United States Geological Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and
research covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the mineral and water resources of the
United States, its territories and possessions, and other areas as authorized by 43 U.S.C. 31, 1332, and
1340; classify lands as to their mineral and water resources; give engineering supervision to power
permittees and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensees; administer the minerals exploration
program (30 U.S.C. 641); conduct inquiries into the economic conditions affecting mining and materials
processing industries (30 U.S.C. 3, 21a, and 1603; 50 U.S.C. 98g(1)) and related purposes as authorized
by law; and to publish and disseminate data relative to the foregoing activities; $922,168,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2019; of which $70,933,913 shall remain available until expended for
satellite operations; and of which $7,266,000 shall be available until expended for deferred maintenance
and capital improvement projects that exceed $100,000 in cost: Provided, That none of the funds
provided for the ecosystem research activity shall be used to conduct new surveys on private property,
unless specifically authorized in writing by the property owner: Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be used to pay more than one-half the cost of topographic mapping or water
resources data collection and investigations carried on in cooperation with States and municipalities.

Note.—A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget
assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). The amounts included
for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification O-1
USGS Exhibits

Appropriation Language and Citations

For expenses necessary for the United States Geological Survey to perform surveys, investigations, and
research covering topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and the mineral and water resources of the
United States,

• 43 U.S.C. 31(a) provides for establishment of the Office of the Director of the Geological
Survey, under the Interior Department, and that this officer shall have direction of the Geological
Survey, and the classification of the public lands and examination of the geological structure,
mineral resources, and products of the national domain.

A full listing of USGS appropriation language and citations is available at the USGS Office of Budget,
Planning, and Integration Web site, under Resources and Tools.

Web site: https://www2.usgs.gov/budget/resources_tools.asp

U.S. Geological Survey
O-2 2018 Budget Justification
USGS Exhibits

Expiring Authorizations
The USGS has no expiring authorizations in 2018.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification O-3
USGS Exhibits

Administrative Provisions

From within the amount appropriated for activities of the United States Geological Survey such sums as
are necessary shall be available for contracting for the furnishing of topographic maps and for the
making of geophysical or other specialized surveys when it is administratively determined that such
procedures are in the public interest; construction and maintenance of necessary buildings and
appurtenant facilities; acquisition of lands for Water Resources and Natural Hazards activities through
permits and licenses; expenses of the United States National Committee for Geological Sciences; and
payment of compensation and expenses of persons employed by the Survey duly appointed to represent
the United States in the negotiation and administration of interstate compacts: Provided, That activities
funded by appropriations herein made may be accomplished through the use of contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements as defined in section 6302 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That
the United States Geological Survey may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements directly with
individuals or indirectly with institutions or nonprofit organizations, without regard to 41 U.S.C. 6101,
for the temporary or intermittent services of students or recent graduates, who shall be considered
employees for the purpose of chapters 57 and 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to compensation
for travel and work injuries, and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, relating to tort claims, but
shall not be considered to be Federal employees for any other purposes.

U.S. Geological Survey
O-4 2018 Budget Justification
USGS Exhibits

Administrative Provisions Language and Citations

A full listing of USGS appropriation language and citations is available at the USGS Office of Budget,
Planning, and Integration Web site, under Resources and Tools.

Web site: https://www2.usgs.gov/budget/resources_tools.asp

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification O-5
USGS Exhibits

FY 2017 Program 2018 Change from
2016 Fixed Internal
Activity/Subactivity/ CR Changes Budget 2017
Actual Costs Transfers
Program Element Annualized (+/-) Request (+/-)
(+/-) (+/-)
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
Ecosystems

Status and Trends Program 20,473 109 20,434 206 0 -24 -3,806 85 16,834 -24 -3,600

Fisheries Program 20,886 134 20,846 253 0 -34 -5,253 100 15,846 -34 -5,000

Wildlife Program 45,757 269 45,670 508 0 -63 -10,707 206 35,471 -63 -10,199

Environments Program 38,415 208 38,342 392 0 -59 -9,392 149 29,342 -59 -9,000

Invasive Species Program 17,330 67 17,297 127 0 0 -127 67 17,297 0 0

Cooperative Research Units 17,371 139 17,338 262 0 0 -262 139 17,338 0 0

Ecosystems Total 160,232 926 159,927 1,748 0 -180 -29,547 746 132,128 -180 -27,799
Land Resources – new
structure 1
National Land Imaging
72,194 146 72,057 340 0 -52 3,730 94 76,127 -52 4,070
Program
Land Change Science
41,346 208 41,267 122 -1,477 -95 -20,627 113 19,285 -95 -21,292
Program
National and Regional
Climate Adaptation 26,435 60 26,385 140 0 -24 -9,090 36 17,435 -24 -8,950
Science Centers
Land Resources Total 139,975 414 139,709 602 -1,477 -171 -25,987 243 112,847 -171 -26,862
Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
Environmental Health
Energy and Minerals
Resources
Mineral Resources
48,371 277 48,279 644 0 0 -644 277 48,279 0 0
Program
Energy Resources
24,695 130 24,648 290 1,477 7 -290 137 26,125 7 1,477
Program
Subtotal 73,066 407 72,927 934 1,477 7 -934 414 74,404 7 1,477
Environmental Health

Contaminant Biology
10,197 57 10,178 139 0 -16 -2,087 41 8,230 -16 -1,948
Program
Toxic Substance Hydrology
11,248 60 11,226 148 0 -15 -2,498 45 8,876 -15 -2,350
Program
Subtotal 21,445 117 21,404 287 0 -31 -4,585 86 17,106 -31 -4,298

Energy and Mineral
Resources, and
94,511 524 94,331 1,221 1,477 -24 -5,519 500 91,510 -24 -2,821
Environmental Health
Total

1
Land Resources (formerly Climate and Land Use Change) is shown in the proposed structure.

U.S. Geological Survey
O-6 2018 Budget Justification
USGS Exhibits

Program Change from
2016 FY 2017 2018 Budget
Fixed Internal Changes 2017
Actual CR Annualized Request
Activity/Subactivity/ Costs Transfers (+/-) (+/-)
Program Element (+/-) (+/-)
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

Natural Hazards

Earthquake Hazards Program 60,503 232 60,388 561 0 -12 -9,561 220 51,388 -12 -9,000

Volcano Hazards Program 26,121 142 26,071 343 0 -7 -3,982 135 22,432 -7 -3,639

Landslide Hazards Program 3,538 22 3,531 53 0 0 -53 22 3,531 0 0
Global Seismographic
6,453 12 6,441 29 0 -2 -1,484 10 4,986 -2 -1,455
Network
Geomagnetism Program 1,888 15 1,884 0 0 -15 -1,884 0 0 -15 -1,884
Coastal-Marine Hazards and
40,510 204 40,433 493 0 -16 -5,152 188 35,774 -16 -4,659
Resources Program
Natural Hazards Total 139,013 627 138,748 1,479 0 -52 -22,116 575 118,111 -52 -20,637

Water Resources
Water Availability and Use
42,052 340 41,972 642 0 -60 -12,201 280 30,413 -60 -11,559
Science Program
Groundwater and
Streamflow Information 71,535 392 71,399 742 0 -10 -3,982 382 68,159 -10 -3,240
Program
National Water Quality
90,600 674 90,428 0 -108 -17,235 566 74,470 -108 -15,958
Program 1,277
Water Resources Research
6,500 1 6,488 0 0 -1 -6,488 0 0 -1 -6,488
Act Program
Water Resources Total 210,687 1,407 210,287 2,661 0 -179 -39,906 1,228 173,042 -179 -37,245

Core Science Systems

National Geospatial Program 62,854 257 62,735 575 0 -26 -11,375 231 51,935 -26 -10,800
National Cooperative
24,397 109 24,351 244 0 -5 -2,314 104 22,281 -5 -2,070
Geologic Mapping Program
Science Synthesis, Analysis
24,299 90 24,253 202 0 -27 -5,702 63 18,753 -27 -5,500
and Research Program
Core Science Systems Total 111,550 456 111,339 1,021 0 -58 -19,391 398 92,969 -58 -18,370

Science Support
Administration and
81,981 451 81,825 944 0 -140 -13,390 311 69,379 -140 -12,446
Management
Information Services 23,630 58 23,585 138 0 -5 -3,734 53 19,989 -5 -3,596

Science Support Total 105,611 509 105,410 1,082 0 -145 -17,124 364 89,368 -145 -16,042

Facilities
Rental Payments and
Operations & 93,141 60 92,964 11,963 0 0 0 60 104,927 0 11,963
Maintenance
Deferred Maintenance and
7,280 0 7,266 0 0 0 0 0 7,266 0 0
Capital Improvement
Facilities Total 100,421 60 100,230 11,963 0 0 0 60 112,193 0 11,963

Total, USGS 1,062,000 4,923 1,059,981 21,777 0 -809 -159,590 4,114 922,168 -809 -137,813

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification O-7
USGS Exhibits

United States Geological Survey
Justification of Fixed Costs and Internal Realignments
(Dollars In Thousands)

2017 to 2018
Fixed Cost Changes and Projections 2017 Change
Change
Change in Number of Paid Days -4,704 +0
This column reflects changes in pay associated with the change in the number of paid days between the CY and BY.

Pay Raise +11,952 +10,102
The change reflects the salary impact of the 2.1% pay raise for 2017 as signed by the President in December 2016, and the
estimated 1.9% pay raise for 2018.

Departmental Working Capital Fund -1,265 -59
The change reflects expected changes in the charges for centrally billed Department services and other services through the Working
Capital Fund. These charges are detailed in the Budget Justification for Departmental M anagement.

Worker's Compensation Payments +145 -75
The amounts reflect projected changes in the costs of compensating injured employees and dependents of employees who suffer
accidental deaths while on duty. Costs will reimburse the Department of Labor, Federal Employees Compensation Fund,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8147(b) as amended by Public Law 94-273.
Unemployment Compensation Payments -121 +9
The amounts reflect projected changes in the costs of unemployment compensation claims to be paid to the Department of Labor,
Federal Employees Compensation Account, in the Unemployment Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 96-499.

Rental Payments -2,077 +11,800
The amounts reflect changes in the costs payable to the General Services Administration (GSA) and others for office and non-
office space as estimated by GSA, as well as the rental costs of other currently occupied space. These costs include building
security; in the case of GSA space, these are paid to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Costs of mandatory office
relocations, i.e. relocations in cases where due to external events there is no alternative but to vacate the currently occupied space,
are also included.
Baseline Adjustments for O&M Increases +3,260 +0
In accordance with space maximization efforts across the Federal Government, this adjustment captures the associated increase to
baseline operations and maintenance (O&M ) requirements resulting from movement out of GSA or direct-leased (commercial)
space and into Bureau-owned space. While the GSA portion of fixed costs will go down as a result of these moves, Bureaus often
encounter an increase to baseline O&M costs not otherwise captured in fixed costs. This category of funding properly adjusts the
baseline fixed cost amount to maintain steady-state funding for these requirements.

U.S. Geological Survey
O-8 2018 Budget Justification
Account Exhibits
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Summary of Requirements by Object Class
(Millions of Dollars)

Appropriation: Surveys, Investigations,
and Research 2017 Program 2018
Estimate Fixed Costs Changes Request
Object Class FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

Personnel compensation
11.1 Full-time permanent 409 7 -66 350
11.3 Other than full-time permanent 41 0 -7 34
11.5 Other personnel compensation 8 0 -1 7

Total personnel compensation 4,923 458 0 7 -809 -74 4,114 391

12.1 Civilian personnel benefits 149 3 -25 127
13.0 Benefits for former personnel 1 0 0 1
21.0 Travel and transportation of persons 23 0 -4 19
22.0 Transportation of things 1 0 0 1
23.1 Rental payment to GSA 58 12 0 70
23.2 Rental payments to others 2 0 0 2
23.3 Communications., utilities, and
18 0 -3 15
miscellaneous charges
24.0 Printing and reproduction 1 0 0 1
25.1 Advisory and assistance services 15 0 -2 13
25.2 Other services from non-Fed sources 77 0 -8 69
25.3 Other goods and services from Fed
60 0 -3 57
sources
25.4 Operation and maintenance of
15 0 0 15
facilities
25.5 Research and development contracts 3 0 0 3
25.7 Operation and maintenance of
26 0 0 26
equipment
26.0 Supplies and materials 24 0 0 24
31.0 Equipment 46 0 -9 37
32.0 Land and structures 1 0 0 1
41.0 Grants, subsidies, and contributions 82 0 -32 50

Total requirements 1,060 22 -160 922

This information is displayed in budget authority (not obligations) by object class.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification P-1
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Summary of Requirements by Object Class
(Millions of Dollars)

Appropriation: Surveys, Investigations, and Research
2017 2018
Estimate Request Increase or Decrease
Reimbursable Obligations FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

Personnel compensation
11.1 Full-time permanent 165 149 -16
11.3 Other than full-time permanent 32 29 -3
11.5 Other personnel compensation 4 3 -1

Total personnel compensation 2,799 201 2,519 181 -280 -20

12.1 Civilian personnel benefits 67 60 -7
21.0 Travel and transportation of persons 13 12 -1
22.0 Transportation of things 1 1 0
23.1 Rental payments to GSA 21 19 -2
23.2 Rental payments to others 1 1 0
23.3 Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous charges 10 9 -1
25.1 Advisory and assistance services 7 6 -1
25.2 Other services 61 55 -6
25.3 Other purchases of goods and services from 26 23 -3
Government accounts
25.4 Operation and maintenance of facilities 6 5 -1
25.5 Research and development contracts 1 1 0
25.7 Operation and maintenance of equipment 8 7 -1
26.0 Supplies and materials 13 12 -1
31.0 Equipment 19 17 -2
41.0 Grants, subsidies, and contributions 34 31 -3

Total requirements 489 440 -49

U.S. Geological Survey
P-2 2018 Budget Justification
Account Exhibits

United States Geological Survey
Federal Funds
General and special funds:
SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Program and Financing
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-0804-0-1-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Obligations by program activity:
00.01 Ecosystems 163 160 133
00.02 Land Resources 143 143 110
00.03 Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health 95 98 91
00.04 Natural Hazards 141 152 128
00.05 Water Resources 213 213 175
00.06 Core Science Systems 117 111 92
00.07 Science Support 107 106 93
00.08 Facilities 99 100 112
07.99 Total direct obligations 1,078 1,083 934

08.01 Reimbursable program 489 489 440

09.00 Total new obligations 1,567 1,572 1,374

Budgetary resources:
Unobligated balance:
10.00 Unobligated balance brought forward, Oct 1 482 518 495
10.21 Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations 11 0 0
10.50 Unobligated balance (total) 493 518 495

Budget authority:
Appropriations, discretionary:
11.00 Appropriation 1,062 1,060 922
11.60 Appropriation, discretionary (total) 1,062 1,060 922

Spending authority from offsetting collections,
discretionary:
17.00 Collected 474 489 440
17.01 Change in uncollected payments, Federal sources 56 0 0

17.50 Spending auth from offsetting collections, disc (total) 530 489 440

19.00 Budget authority (total) 1,592 1,549 1,362
19.30 Total budgetary resources available 2,085 2,067 1,857

Memorandum (non-add) entries:
19.41 Unexpired unobligated balance, end of year 518 495 483

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification P-3
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH
Program and Financing cont’d
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-0804-0-1-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Change in obligated balance:
Unpaid obligations:
30.00 Unpaid obligations, brought forward, Oct 1 336 350 427
30.10 Obligations incurred, unexpired accounts 1,567 1,572 1,374
30.11 Obligations incurred, expired accounts 3 0 0
30.20 Outlays (gross) -1,539 -1,495 -1,430
30.40 Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, unexpired -11 0 0
30.41 Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations, expired -6 0 0
30.50 Unpaid obligations, end of year 350 427 371

Uncollected payments:
Uncollected payments, Fed sources, brought forward,
30.60 -506 -548 -548
Oct 1
Change in uncollected payments, Fed sources,
30.70 -56 0 0
unexpired
Change in uncollected payments, Fed sources,
30.71 14 0 0
expired
30.90 Uncollected payments, Fed sources, end of year -548 -548 -548

Memorandum (non-add) entries:
31.00 Obligated balance, start of year -170 -198 -121
32.00 Obligated balance, end of year -198 -121 -177

Budget authority and outlays, net:
Discretionary:
40.00 Budget authority, gross 1,592 1,549 1,362

Outlays, gross:
40.10 Outlays from new discretionary authority 896 1,286 1,130
40.11 Outlays from discretionary balances 642 196 291
40.20 Outlays, gross (total) 1,538 1,482 1,421

Offsets against gross budget authority and outlays:
Offsetting collections (collected) from:
40.30 Federal sources -267 -269 -242
40.33 Non-Federal sources -221 -220 -198
Offsets against gross budget authority and outlays
40.40 -488 -489 -440
(total)

U.S. Geological Survey
P-4 2018 Budget Justification
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Program and Financing cont’d
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-0804-0-1-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Additional offsets against gross budget authority only:
Change in uncollected payments, Fed sources,
40.50 -56 0 0
Unexpired
40.52 Offsetting collections credited to expired accounts 14 0 0

40.60 Additional offsets against budget authority only (total) -42 0 0

40.70 Budget authority, net (discretionary) 1,062 1,060 922
40.80 Outlays, net (discretionary) 1,050 993 981

Mandatory:
Outlays, gross:
41.01 Outlays from mandatory balances 1 13 9

41.80 Budget authority, net (total) 1,062 1,060 922
41.90 Outlays, net (total) 1,051 1,006 990

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification P-5
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Object Classification
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-0804-0-1-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Direct obligations:
Personnel compensation:
11.1 Full-time permanent 406 409 350
11.3 Other than full-time permanent 40 41 34
11.5 Other personnel compensation 8 8 7
11.9 Total personnel compensation 454 458 391

12.1 Civilian personnel benefits 147 149 127
13.0 Benefits for former personnel 1 1 1
21.0 Travel and transportation of persons 23 23 19
22.0 Transportation of things 1 1 1
23.1 Rental payments to GSA 60 58 70
23.2 Rental payment to others 2 2 2
23.3 Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous charges 18 18 15
24.0 Printing and reproduction 1 1 1
25.1 Advisory and assistance services 20 15 13
25.2 Other services from non-Fed sources 97 87 69
25.3 Other goods and services from Fed sources 73 73 60
25.4 Operation and maintenance of facilities 12 15 15
25.5 Research and development contracts 3 3 3
25.7 Operation and maintenance of equipment 20 26 26
26.0 Supplies and materials 24 24 24
31.0 Equipment 39 46 46
32.0 Land and structures 1 1 1
41.0 Grants, subsidies, and contributions 82 82 50
99.0 Direct obligations 1,078 1,083 934

U.S. Geological Survey
P-6 2018 Budget Justification
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Object Classification cont’d
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-0804-0-1-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Reimbursable obligations:
Personnel compensation:
11.1 Full-time permanent 165 165 149
11.3 Other than full-time permanent 32 32 29
11.5 Other personnel compensation 4 4 3
11.9 Total personnel compensation 201 201 181

12.1 Civilian personnel benefits 67 67 60
21.0 Travel and transportation of persons 13 13 12
22.0 Transportation of things 1 1 1
23.1 Rental payments to GSA 21 21 19
23.2 Rental payments to others 1 1 1
23.3 Communications., utilities, and miscellaneous charges 10 10 9
25.1 Advisory and assistance services 7 7 6
25.2 Other services from non-Fed sources 61 61 55
25.3 Other goods and services from Fed sources 26 26 23
25.4 Operation and maintenance of facilities 6 6 5
25.5 Research and development contracts 1 1 1
25.7 Operation and maintenance of equipment 8 8 7
26.0 Supplies and materials 13 13 12
31.0 Equipment 19 19 17
41.0 Grants, subsidies, and contributions 34 34 31
99.0 Reimbursable obligations 489 489 440

99.9 Total new obligations 1,567 1,572 1,374

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification P-7
Account Exhibits

SURVEYS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND RESEARCH

Employment Summary
Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-0804-0-1-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Direct:
1001 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 4,923 4,923 4,114

Reimbursable:
2001 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 2,799 2,799 2,519

Allocation account:
3001 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 72 72 72

U.S. Geological Survey
P-8 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits
Sundry Exhibits

Funding of U.S. Geological Survey Programs
(Obligations)
(Thousands of Dollars)

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Ecosystems
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 162,935 160,453 133,518
Total (appropriated) 162,935 160,453 133,518

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Technology Transfer 3,627 3,627 3,264
Miscellaneous 11,283 11,283 10,155
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 14,910 14,910 13,419

Non-Federal (Foreign) sources
Miscellaneous 23 23 21
Subtotal (non-Federal Foreign sources) 23 23 21

State and local sources
States-Coop (matched - In-Kind Services) NON ADD 331 331 298
Subtotal (state and local sources) 0 0 0

Federal sources
Department of Agriculture 3,300 3,300 2,970
Department of Commerce
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin 227 227 204
Other 164 164 148
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers 16,498 16,498 14,848
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 2,084 2,084 1,876
Other 1,776 1,776 1,598
Department of Energy
Bonneville Power Administration 1,804 1,804 1,624
Other 392 392 353
Department of Homeland Security 103 103 93
Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management 6,407 6,407 5,766
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 1,127 1,127 1,014
Bureau of Reclamation 12,530 12,530 11,277
Fish and Wildlife Service 8,337 8,337 7,503
National Park Service 3,070 3,070 2,763
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 523 523 471
Other 552 552 497
Department of State 43 43 39
Environmental Protection Agency 440 440 396
Health and Human Services 179 179 161
National Aeronautics & Space Admin 209 209 188
Subtotal (Federal sources) 59,765 59,765 53,789

Total (reimbursements) 74,698 74,698 67,229

Total: Ecosystems 237,633 235,151 200,747

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-1
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Land Resources
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 81,649 88,562 44,141
No-Year appropriation 61,465 54,466 65,934
Total (appropriated) 143,114 143,028 110,075

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Technology Transfer 80 80 72
Miscellaneous 175 175 158
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 255 255 230

Non-Federal (Foreign) sources
Miscellaneous 1,356 1,356 1,220
Subtotal (non-Federal Foreign sources) 1,356 1,356 1,220

State and local sources
States-Coop (matched - In-Kind Services) NON ADD 30 30 27
Subtotal (state and local sources) 0 0 0

Federal sources
Agency for International Development 6,256 6,256 5,630
Department of Agriculture 948 948 853
Department of Commerce 219 219 197
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers 323 323 291
Other 101 101 91
Department of Energy 108 108 97
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency 62 62 56
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs 74 74 67
Bureau of Land Management 1,426 1,426 1,283
Bureau of Reclamation 40 40 36
Fish and Wildlife Service 126 126 113
National Park Service 458 458 412
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 3,986 3,986 3,587
Environmental Protection Agency 1,380 1,380 1,242
Health and Human Services 95 95 86
National Aeronautics & Space Admin 11,064 11,064 9,958
Sale of maps, photos, reproductions, & digital products 314 314 283
Miscellaneous 8 8 7
Subtotal (Federal sources) 26,988 26,988 24,289

Total (reimbursements) 28,599 28,599 25,739

Total: Land Resources 171,713 171,627 135,814

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-2 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 94,586 97,451 91,651
No-Year appropriation 95 147 0
Total (appropriated) 94,681 97,598 91,651

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Technology Transfer 1,009 1,009 908
Miscellaneous 501 501 451
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 1,510 1,510 1,359

State and local sources
States-Coop (matched - In-Kind Services) NON ADD 80 80 72
States-Coop (unmatched) 21 21 19
Subtotal (state and local sources) 21 21 19

Federal sources
Department of Agriculture 42 42 38
Department of Commerce
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin 83 83 75
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers 253 253 228
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 50 50 45
Other 1,126 1,126 1,013
Department of Energy 13 13 12
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs 7 7 6
Bureau of Land Management 4,226 4,226 3,803
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 5 5 5
Bureau of Reclamation 15 15 14
Fish and Wildlife Service 376 376 338
National Park Service 226 226 203
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 999 999 899
Department of Justice 93 93 84
Environmental Protection Agency 217 217 195
Subtotal (Federal sources) 7,731 7,731 6,958

Total (reimbursements) 9,262 9,262 8,336

Total: Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health 103,943 106,860 99,987

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-3
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Natural Hazards
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 139,951 139,328 119,142
Total (appropriated) 139,951 139,328 119,142

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Technology Transfer 1,103 1,103 993
Miscellaneous 1,860 1,860 1,674
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 2,963 2,963 2,667

Non-Federal (Foreign) sources
Saudi Geological Survey 1,825 1,825 1,643
Miscellaneous 18 18 16
Subtotal (non-Federal Foreign sources) 1,843 1,843 1,659

State and local sources
States-Coop (matched - In-Kind Services) NON ADD 932 932 839
States-Coop (unmatched) 259 259 233
Subtotal (state and local sources) 259 259 233

Federal sources
Agency for International Development 6,546 6,546 5,891
Department of Agriculture 200 200 180
Department of Commerce 165 165 149
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers 711 711 640
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 67 67 60
Other 762 762 686
Department of Energy 2,512 2,512 2,261
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency 139 139 125
Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management 63 63 57
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 500 500 450
Bureau of Reclamation 13 13 12
Fish and Wildlife Service 84 84 76
National Park Service 58 58 52
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 81 81 73
Department of State 47 47 42
Department of Veterans Affairs 213 213 192
Environmental Protection Agency 168 168 151
Health and Human Services 0 0 0
National Aeronautics & Space Admin 8,404 8,404 7,564
National Science Foundation 60 60 54
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 231 231 208
Subtotal (Federal sources) 21,024 21,024 18,923

Total (reimbursements) 26,089 26,089 23,482

Total: Natural Hazards * 166,040 165,417 142,624

* This table does not include obligations for the Spectrum Relocation Fund, since it is a mandatory fund. MAX obligations do include the
Spectrum Relocation Fund. The amounts included in MAX are: FY 2016 $1,088K, FY 2017 $12,495K, and FY 2018 $8,807K.

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-4 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Water Resources
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 212,528 213,113 174,904
Total (appropriated) 212,528 213,113 174,904

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Permittees & licensees- Fed Energy Regulatory Commission 6,085 6,085 5,477
Technology Transfer 4,413 4,413 3,972
Miscellaneous 4,045 4,045 3,641
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 14,543 14,543 13,090

Non-Federal (Foreign) sources
The Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi 905 905 815
Miscellaneous 539 539 485
Subtotal (non-Federal Foreign sources) 1,444 1,444 1,300

State and local sources
States-Coop (matched) 57,710 60,185 57,710
States-Coop (matched - In-Kind Services) NON ADD 1,291 1,291 1,162
States-Coop (unmatched) 104,173 101,698 87,985
Subtotal (state and local sources) 161,883 161,883 145,695

Federal sources
Agency for International Development 140 140 126
Department of Agriculture 1,596 1,596 1,436
Department of Commerce
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin 70 70 63
Other 18 18 16
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers 38,589 38,589 34,730
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 1,313 1,313 1,182
Other 5,563 5,563 5,007
Department of Energy
Bonneville Power Administration 440 440 396
Other 5,461 5,461 4,915
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency 3,996 3,996 3,596
Other 407 407 366
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs 182 182 164
Bureau of Land Management 2,940 2,940 2,646
Bureau of Reclamation 17,765 17,765 15,989
Fish and Wildlife Service 1,976 1,976 1,778
National Park Service 2,016 2,016 1,814
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 526 526 473
Other 29 29 26
Office of Surface Mining 115 115 104

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-5
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Water Resources, continued
Department of Justice 11 11 10
Department of State 1,740 1,740 1,566
Environmental Protection Agency 33,587 33,587 30,228
Health and Human Services 87 87 78
National Aeronautics & Space Admin 1,266 1,266 1,139
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 372 372 335
Tennessee Valley Authority 436 436 392
Subtotal (Federal sources) 120,641 120,641 108,575

Total (reimbursements) 298,511 298,511 268,660

Total: Water Resources 511,039 511,624 443,564

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-6 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Core Science Systems
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 116,505 111,110 91,661
Total (appropriated) 116,505 111,110 91,661

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Technology Transfer 332 332 299
Miscellaneous 14 14 13
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 346 346 312

State and local sources
States-Coop (matched - In-Kind Services) NON ADD 18 18 16
States-Coop (unmatched) 9,593 9,593 8,634
Subtotal (state and local sources) 9,593 9,593 8,634

Federal sources
Department of Agriculture 11,271 11,271 10,144
Department of Commerce
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin 113 113 102
Other 229 229 206
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers 489 489 440
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 28 28 25
Department of Education 25 25 23
Department of Energy 166 166 149
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency 11,378 11,378 10,240
Other 226 226 203
Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management 468 468 421
Bureau of Reclamation 43 43 39
Fish and Wildlife Service 587 587 528
National Park Service 1,532 1,532 1,379
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 86 86 77
Department of Justice 50 50 45
Department of State 50 50 45
Department of Transportation 50 50 45
Department of Treasury 25 25 23
Department of Veterans Affairs 25 25 23
Environmental Protection Agency 226 226 203
General Services Administration 100 100 90
Health and Human Services 50 50 45
Housing and Urban Development 50 50 45
National Aeronautics & Space Admin 226 226 203
National Science Foundation 1,043 1,043 939
Tennessee Valley Authority 80 80 72
Miscellaneous 75 75 68
Subtotal (Federal sources) 28,691 28,691 25,822

Total (reimbursements) 38,630 38,630 34,768

Total: Core Science Systems * 155,135 149,740 126,429

* This table does not include obligations from the unobligated balance transfer from USAID, which is included in MAX. The amount for FY
2016 is $400K.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-7
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Science Support
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 107,219 105,468 92,095
Total (appropriated) 107,219 105,468 92,095

Reimbursements
Non-Federal (Domestic) sources
Map Receipts 1,586 1,586 1,427
Sale of photos, reproductions, and digital products 1,472 1,472 1,325
Technology Transfer 88 88 79
Subtotal (non-Federal domestic sources) 3,146 3,146 2,831

Federal sources
Department of Agriculture 8 8 7
Department of Defense 385 385 347
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs 93 93 84
Bureau of Land Management 29 29 26
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 62 62 56
Fish and Wildlife Service 114 114 103
National Park Service 7 7 6
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 1,143 1,143 1,029
Other 581 581 523
Office of Surface Mining 15 15 14
General Services Administration 12 12 11
Sale of maps, photos, reproductions, & digital products 1,173 1,173 1,056
Miscellaneous 23 23 21
Subtotal (Federal sources) 3,645 3,645 3,283

Total (reimbursements) 6,791 6,791 6,114

Total: Science Support * 114,010 112,259 98,209

* This table does not include obligations for the Spectrum Relocation Fund, since it is a mandatory fund. MAX obligations do include the
Spectrum Relocation Fund. The amounts included in MAX are: FY 2016 $142K, FY 2017 $623K, and FY 2017 $672K.

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-8 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Facilities
Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 93,773 91,673 103,400
No-Year appropriation 5,221 8,117 8,266
Total (appropriated) 98,994 99,790 111,666

Reimbursements
Federal sources
Department of Commerce 877 877 789
Department of Defense 1,867 1,867 1,680
Bureau of Land Management 277 277 249
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 79 79 71
National Park Service 1,130 1,130 1,017
Office of Secretary
Interior Business Center 1,860 1,860 1,674
Other 570 570 513
Subtotal (Federal sources) 6,660 6,660 5,993

Total (reimbursements) 6,660 6,660 5,993

Total: Facilities 105,654 106,450 117,659

SIR Summary:

Appropriated
Multi-Year appropriation 1,009,146 1,007,158 850,512
No-Year appropriation 66,781 62,730 74,200
subtotal (appropriated) 1,075,927 1,069,888 924,712

Reimbursements
Non-Federal Sources
Map Receipts 1,586 1,586 1,427
Domestic 36,087 36,087 32,481
Foreign 4,666 4,666 4,200
State and local sources 171,756 171,756 154,581
Federal Sources 275,145 275,145 247,632
subtotal (reimbursements) 489,240 489,240 440,321

Total: SIR * 1,565,167 1,559,128 1,365,033

* This table does not include obligations for the Spectrum Relocation Fund, since it is a mandatory fund. MAX obligations do include the
Spectrum Relocation Fund. The amounts included in MAX are: FY 2016 $1,230K, FY 2017 $13,118K, and FY 2018 $9,479K. This table also
does not include obligations from the unobligated balance transfer from USAID, which is included in MAX. The amount for FY 2016 is $400K.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-9
Sundry Exhibits

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate
Surveys, Investigations, and Research (SIR)

Contributed Funds:
Permanent, indefinite appropriation:
Ecosystems 689 509 423
Land Resources 8 18 0
Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health 54 38 21
Natural Hazards 87 6 20
Water Resources 255 163 81
Total: Contributed Funds 1,093 734 545

Operation and Maintenance of Quarters:
Permanent, indefinite appropriation:
Ecosystems 21 34 36
Natural Hazards 11 32 13
Total: Operation and Maintenance of Quarters 32 66 49

Working Capital Fund:
National Water Quality Lab 19,074 17,000 16,000
Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility 19,934 20,323 20,192
Other 35,545 74,970 49,891
Total: Working Capital Fund 74,553 112,293 86,083

Allocations from other Federal Agencies: *
Department of the Interior: Departmental Offices
Natural Resource Damage Assessment 1,747 4,000 4,000
Central Hazardous Materials Fund 50 200 50
Total: Allocations 1,797 4,200 4,050

* Allocations are shown in the year they are received, not when they are obligated.

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-10 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits

United States Geological Survey
Trust Funds
CONTRIBUTED FUNDS
Special and Trust Fund Receipts
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-8562-0-7-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

01.00 Balance, start of year 0 0 0

Receipts:
Current law:
11.30 Contributed Funds, Geological Survey 1 1 1
20.00 Total: Balances and receipts 1 1 1

Appropriations:
Current law:
21.01 Contributed Funds -1 -1 -1

50.99 Balance, end of year 0 0 0

Program and Financing
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-8562-0-7-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Obligations by program activity:
08.01 Donations and contributed funds 1 1 1
09.00 Total new obligations, unexpired accounts 1 1 1

Budgetary resources:
Unobligated balance:
10.00 Unobligated balance brought forward, Oct 1 1 1 1

Budget authority:
Appropriation, mandatory:
12.01 Appropriation (trust fund) 1 1 1
12.60 Appropriation, mandatory (total) 1 1 1

19.30 Total budgetary resources available 2 2 2

Memorandum (non-add) entries:
19.41 Unexpired unobligated balance, end of year 1 1 1

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-11
Sundry Exhibits

CONTRIBUTED FUNDS
Program and Financing cont’d
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-8562-0-7-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Change in obligated balance:
Unpaid obligations:
30.00 Unpaid obligations, brought forward, Oct 1 0 0 1
30.10 New obligations, unexpired accounts 1 1 1
30.20 Outlays (gross) -1 0 -1

30.50 Unpaid obligations, end of year 0 1 1
Memorandum (non-add) entries:
31.00 Obligated balance, start of year 0 0 1
32.00 Obligated balance, end of year 0 1 1

Budget authority and outlays, net:
Mandatory:
40.90 Budget authority, gross 1 1 1
Outlays, gross:
41.01 Outlays from mandatory balances 1 0 1
41.10 Outlays, gross (total) 1 0 1

41.80 Budget authority, net (total) 1 1 1
41.90 Outlays, net (total) 1 0 1

Object Classification
(Millions of Dollars)

Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-8562-0-7-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Direct obligations:
99.5 Adjustment for rounding 1 1 1
99.9 Total new obligations 1 1 1

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-12 2018 Budget Justification
Sundry Exhibits

CONTRIBUTED FUNDS
Employment Summary
Identification Code 2016 2017 2018
14-8562-0-7-306 Actual Estimate Estimate

Direct:
1001 Civilian full-time equivalent employment 5 5 5

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-13
Sundry Exhibits

Employee Count by Grade
(Total Employment)

2016 2017 2018
Actual Estimate Estimate

Executive Level V ...................................................................................... 1 1 1

SES ............................................................................................................. 17 21 21
Subtotal ........................................................................ 18 22 22

SL – 00 ...................................................................................................... 10 10 11
ST – 00 ...................................................................................................... 44 55 60
Subtotal ........................................................................ 54 65 71

GS/GM – 15 ............................................................................................... 480 470 402
GS/GM – 14 ............................................................................................... 736 721 617
GS/GM – 13 .............................................................................................. 1,232 1,207 1,032
GS – 12 ....................................................................................................... 1,527 1,496 1,279
GS – 11 ....................................................................................................... 1,235 1,210 1,035
GS – 10 ....................................................................................................... 17 17 14
GS – 9 ......................................................................................................... 932 913 781
GS – 8 ......................................................................................................... 242 237 203
GS – 7 ......................................................................................................... 593 581 497
GS – 6 ......................................................................................................... 243 238 204
GS – 5 ......................................................................................................... 406 398 340
GS – 4 ......................................................................................................... 179 175 150
GS – 3 ......................................................................................................... 72 71 60
GS – 2 ......................................................................................................... 33 32 28
GS – 1 ......................................................................................................... 8 8 7
Subtotal ........................................................................ 7,935 7,776 6,648

Other Pay Schedule Systems ...................................................................... 327 327 327

Total employment (actual/estimate) ........................................................... 8,335 8,190 7,068

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-14 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

Section 403 Compliance

This section describes details related to any assessments to, or within the USGS to support bureauwide
services and functions. Details regarding the USGS’s payments to the Department of the Interior’s
Working Capital Fund, and payments to other Federal Agencies are included in the External
Administrative Costs subsection. Additional information on internal assessments and cost allocation
methodologies can be found in the Bureau Administrative Costs subsection.

2018 Estimate
($000)
External Administrative Costs
The Department of the Interior’s Working Capital Fund
WCF Centralized Billings $16,442
WCF Direct Billings $10,204
Payments to Other Federal Agencies
Worker’s Compensation Payments -$75
Unemployment Compensation Payments $9
GSA Rental Payments $11,800

Bureau Administrative Costs
Shared Program Costs $13,639
Internal Bureau Overhead $38,500

External Administrative Costs

The Department of the Interior’s Working Capital Fund

The Department's Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1467, to provide common
administrative and support services efficiently and economically at cost. The Fund is a revolving fund,
whereby capital is expended to provide services for customers who pay for the services. Customers
consist of the Department's bureaus and offices, as well as other Federal agencies. Through the use of
centrally provided services, the Department standardized key administrative areas such as commonly used
administrative systems, support services for those located in and around the Main and South Interior
building complex, and centrally managed departmental operations that are beneficial to the bureaus and
offices.

Centralized billing is used whenever the product or service being provided is not severable or it is
inefficient to bill for the exact amount of product or service being procured. Customers are billed each
year using a pre-established basis that is adjusted annually to reflect change over time. These bills are
paid for by both the Administrative & Management and the Information Services subactivities within
Science Support, and payment may be adjusted accordingly between these lines during the year of

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-15
Sundry Exhibits

execution based on the enacted appropriation. The following table provides the actual centralized billing
to the USGS for 2016 and estimates for 2017 and 2018.

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-16 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-17
Sundry Exhibits

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-18 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-19
Sundry Exhibits

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-20 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

Direct billing is used whenever the product or service provided is again severable, but is sold through a
time and materials reimbursable support agreement or similar contractual arrangement. The following
tables provide the actual direct and reimbursable collections from the USGS for 2016, and estimated
billings and collections for 2017 and 2018.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-21
Sundry Exhibits

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-22 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

Payments to Other Federal Agencies

2016 2017 2018
Actual Change Change
Worker's Compensation Payments 2,331 151 -75
The adjustment is for the change in costs of compensating injured employees and dependents of employees who suffer accidental deaths while on duty.
Costs for the BY will reimburse the Department of Labor, Federal Employees Compensation Fund, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8147(b) as amended by
Public Law 94-273.

Unemployment Compensation Payments 604 -78 9
The adjustment is for projected changes in the costs of unemployment compensation claims to be paid to the Department of Labor, Federal
Employees Compensation Account, in the Unemployment Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 96-499.

GSA Rental Payments 81,198 1,223 11,800
The adjustment is for changes in the costs payable to General Services Administration (GSA) and others resulting from changes in rates for office and
non-office space estimated by GSA, as well as the rental costs of other currently occupied space. These costs include building security, the case of
GSA space, these are paid to DHS. Costs of mandatory office relocations, i.e., relocations in cases where due to external events there is no alternative
but to vacate the currently occupied space, are also included.

Bureau Administrative Costs

Shared Program Costs

The USGS maintains less than one percent of its appropriation for other bureau-wide support and science-
related activities. These funds are used for initiatives which may be unfunded mandates, are crosscutting
in nature, or respond to new and emerging scientific issues.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-23
Sundry Exhibits

The funding for the initiatives in the Shared Program Costs are assessed at the budget activity level, based
upon one of two methodologies: proportionately, based on total appropriated funds for the mission area;
or proportionately, based on total funds for the mission area, including reimbursable funding sources, and
are distributed to the initiatives efficiently. The methodology used is tied to the nature of the initiative.
For instance, an initiative that is crosscutting to all the mission areas, but is purely an Interior priority
(one in which an external partner is not a stakeholder, nor receives direct benefit of the service) would
receive its funding based upon a calculation on appropriated funds only. Conversely, an initiative where
all customers of the USGS either directly or indirectly receive benefit, such as the aforementioned
information technology compliance and security upgrades, would be calculated to each of the mission
areas based upon all funding sources, both appropriated and reimbursable. The initiatives on the Shared
Program Cost Chart are vetted each year with the Executive Leadership Team of the USGS, and are
decided upon in a voting process to ensure bureauwide concurrence.

The following initiatives are currently planned for the USGS’s 2018 Shared Program Costs:
2018 Shared Program Cost Chart ($000)

Climate & Land Energy and Environmental Core Science
Mission Area Ecosystems Use Change Minerals Health Natural Hazards Water Resources Systems T otal
Delta Science ** 120.3 112.4 55.0 16.0 109.2 161.7 87.4 662.1
Grand Canyon Monitoring ** 183.0 171.0 83.7 24.3 166.2 246.1 133.0 1,007.4
Regional Science ** 473.3 442.3 216.5 62.9 429.7 636.3 343.9 2,604.8
John Wesley Powell Center ** 85.5 79.9 39.1 11.4 77.6 114.9 62.1 470.5
International Program ** 293.2 274.0 134.1 39.0 266.2 394.2 213.0 1,613.8
Information Management and T echnology * 713.5 540.9 246.2 70.1 522.5 1,565.4 472.2 4,130.7
Web Re-engineering * 500.9 379.8 172.9 49.2 366.8 1,099.0 331.5 2,900.0
QMS Laboratory Review ** 45.4 42.4 20.8 6.0 41.2 61.1 33.0 250.0
T otal Program Costs 2,415.1 2,042.8 968.3 279.0 1,979.4 4,278.7 1,676.0 13,639.4
* Proportionally spread by total funds.
** Proportionally spread by appropriated funds.

Delta Science – The California Bay-Delta is recognized as one of the world’s threatened treasures of
biodiversity, which supports unique native species and their critical tidal habitats. The USGS participates
in the Delta Science Federal-State partnership which coordinates the efforts of 25 State and Federal
agencies to improve the quality and reliability of California’s water supplies while restoring the Bay-
Delta ecosystem. USGS science contributes to restoration challenges such as water supply reliability,
water quality, sustainability of native species, and flood risk.

Grand Canyon Monitoring – The USGS’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) is
the science provider for the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. In this role, the research
center provides the public and decisionmakers with relevant scientific information about the status and
trends of natural, cultural, and recreational resources found in those portions of Grand Canyon National
Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations.

Regional Science – The implementation of the USGS Science Strategy calls for the integration of the full
breadth and depth of USGS capabilities; building on existing strengths and partnerships. To that end,
many of the USGS’s historical “single-discipline” science centers are now reflections of this science
strategy, and perform research and conduct science across many USGS mission areas, and need to
respond quickly to new and emerging science issues. This funding brings scientists together to work

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-24 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

across teams and across regions, to respond to the Nation’s highest and changing priorities, respond to
global trends, and conduct the best possible science.

John Wesley Powell Center – The John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis serves as a
catalyst for innovative thinking in Earth system science research. Initiated as one means of implementing
the USGS Science Strategy, the Powell Center supports scientist-driven interdisciplinary analysis and
synthesis of complex natural science problems. USGS scientists are encouraged to propose working
groups reflecting a mix of USGS scientists and their colleagues from government and academia focused
on major earth science issues. The Powell Center work generates cutting-edge, high-visibility
publications.

International Programs – The Office of International Programs is dedicated to high quality, timely,
scientific study that is international in scope and that focuses on the USGS Science Strategy's themes. As
one of the world’s premier science agencies, the USGS has long recognized the mutual benefits resulting
from interaction with scientific partners abroad and extending research and investigations to other
countries. By providing reliable scientific information about the Earth and its resources from an
international perspective, the USGS Office of International Programs supports US foreign policy and
national security; provides a basis for science diplomacy, and improves the scientific basis for managing
ecosystems and natural resources.

DOI IT Transformation – This funding will be used to support Interior’s efforts in IT Transformation.
These funds will support the Department’s activities related to data center consolidation, single-source
messaging, and cloud-based electronic forms, records, documents and content management solutions.

Web Reengineering – This funding will streamline and organize USGS’s web presence to create a more
effective and manageable Web presence and to provide Web-enabled technology, real-time access, social
and collaborative cloud-based tools, and extensive use of mobile and tablet devices.

QMS Laboratory Review – Conduct a multi-phase review of all USGS laboratories on processes,
procedures, and best practices to meet our Nation’s need. The multi-phase study will be independently
conducted to assure our facilities across the nation have an overall Quality Management System (QMS).
QMS is a written and documented collection of quality assurance manuals, standard operating procedures
(SOPs), laboratory practices and policies, and commitments by an organization to report data of known
and documented quality in terms of traceability, transparency, reliability, consistency, and reproducibility.

Internal Bureau Overhead Cost Allocation Methodology

The USGS manages overhead costs at two levels—the bureau and science center. Bureau level costs
include headquarters and area executive, managerial, supervisory, administrative, and financial functions
and bureauwide systems. At the bureau level, funding appropriated to the Science Support budget
activity pays the bureauwide overhead costs in the same proportion as appropriated funding is to total
funding. For this reason, bureauwide overhead costs collected on reimbursable support agreements are
deposited within Science Support program areas, as well.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-25
Sundry Exhibits

The USGS assesses a bureau overhead rate, estimated to remain at 12 percent, on reimbursable work from
non-Interior customers to recoup their share of bureau-level costs. In some cases, the USGS assesses a
special or reduced rate when it can be demonstrated that indirect costs are substantially and consistently
less than the norm and the amount collected covers the full costs, such as with pass-through funding
where the Survey does not perform any of the actual work. The following table shows the funding
available to the Science Support program, including the anticipated overhead collections to pay for
bureauwide costs.

(Dollars in Thousands)
2018
2018 Estimated Bureau 2018
Budget Overhead Estimated
Source of Funding Request Distribution Total
Science Support
Administration and Management 69,379 29,889 99,268
Information Services 19,989 8,611 28,600
Total Funding 89,368 38,500 127,868

At the science center level, because there generally is not an appropriated funding source to pay the local
overhead (common services) costs, both the appropriated and reimbursable funding are assessed a
percentage to cover their share of science center-level costs. Science center common services costs
include center costs that are not directly attributable to a specific activity or project, such as managerial,
supervisory, administrative, and financial functions and related systems, as well as costs incidental to
providing services and products, such as postage, training, miscellaneous supplies and materials. The cost
during 2016, for the local overhead, totaled $200 million from both appropriated and reimbursable funds.

In recognition of the USGS role as the science bureau for the Department of the Interior, the USGS is
continuing to give Interior bureaus and offices a "preferred" customer rate on overhead charges for a
significant portion of reimbursable work, to the extent that matching funds are available within the USGS
budget. The maximum rate that cost centers may charge other Interior bureaus for common services and
bureau costs combined remains 15 percent net. In 2016, of the 15 percent, 7.5 percent is applied to
bureau costs, and the remaining 7.5 percent is applied to common services costs. Cost centers must fund
the common services costs not recovered (e.g., the difference between the cost center's standard common
services costs and the 7.5 percent) from USGS appropriated funds. In this way, the USGS is partnering
on the science needs of Interior from both the bureau and cost centers.

The Chief Financial Officer establishes the USGS bureau special rate for each fiscal year. The special
rate for 2017 is estimated to remain at three percent. Cost centers do not charge more than the bureau
special rate for facilities-related costs or their standard common services rate when funding is approved
for a bureau-level special rate. Special rates are applied under the following circumstances:
• When the USGS receives funds from a non-USGS organization and awards a grant to a third-
party entity.

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-26 2018 Budget Justification
U.S. Geological Survey Support of Bureau, Department, and Governmentwide Costs

• When the USGS receives funds from one or more non-USGS organizations to support, under
USGS leadership, a strategic science objective that includes the USGS passing through funds to
one or more third-party entities.
• When the USGS receives funds from a non-USGS organization for the purpose of the customer
acquiring services through the Cartographic Services or the Remotely Sensed Data Contracts.
The special rate helps encourage other Federal agencies to use these contracts for cartographic
services and remotely sensed data, rather than establishing and managing their own contracts, and
ensures greater data consistency through the use of common service providers.
• When the USGS receives funds from a non-USGS organization for the purpose of passing
through the customer's funds to State and local governments for the direct purchase of geospatial
data.
• Ecosystem’s Cooperative Research Units (CRUs) are supported by a three-way partnership
including the USGS, a State, and a university. The academic institutions where CRUs are co-
located provide significant administrative support. In recognition of the direct services support
received from the non-USGS partners, CRUs only recover one-half of the bureau rate (six
percent) normally recovered from reimbursable customers or partners.

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification Q-27
Sundry Exhibits

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
Q-28 2018 Budget Justification
Appendix
Acronyms

Alphabetical List of Acronyms

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science
AAPG American Association of Petroleum Geologists
ABC Activity-Based Costing
ABC/M Activity-Based Costing/Management
ABP Asset Business Plan
ACCCNRS Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resources Science
ACES Achieving Cost Efficiencies for Science
ACI American Competitive Initiative
ACP Arctic Coastal Plain
ACWI Advisory Committee on Water Information
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AEI Administration and Enterprise Information
AFS American Fisheries Society
AFWA U.S. Air Force Weather Agency
AMD Aviation Management Directorate
AMP Asset Management Plan
AMWG Adaptive Management Work Group
ANS Alaska North Slope
ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species (Ecosystems)
ANSS Advanced National Seismic System
ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
APHIS Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
API Asset Priority Index
AR Accounts Receivable
AR5 5th Assessment Report
ARMI Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASC Alaska Science Center
ASIWPCA Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
AVO Alaska Volcano Observatory
AWiFS Advanced Wide Field Sensor
BASIS+ Budget and Science Information System
BBL Bird Banding Laboratory
BBS Bird Breeding Survey
BEN Balkan Endemic Nephropathy
BT Budget Team
BGN Board of Geographic Names
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
BIMD Biological Information Management and Delivery

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-1
Acronyms

BIP Biological Informatics Program (Equivalent to BMID)
BIS Commerce - Bureau of Industry and Security
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BLT Business Leaders Team
BMPs Best Management Practices
BNP Biscayne National Park
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BPA Blank Purchase Agreement
BPC Bureau Program Council
BPI USGS Office of Budget, Planning, and Integration
BPXA BP Exploration (Alaska)
BSR Business Strategy Review
CA Condition Assessment
CAC Civil Applications Committee
CALFED California Federal (Bay-Delta Authority program)
CAP Cooperative Agreements Program
CARA Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal
C&A Certification and Accreditation
CC Cost Center
CBERS China/Brazil Earth Resources Satellite
CBLCM Chesapeake Bay Land Cover Management
CBM Coal bed Methane
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
CCI Collaborative Communications Infrastructure
CCOAT Coast Chesapeake Online Assessment Tool
CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDR Critical Design Review (Climate and Land Use)
CDR Climate Data Record (Climate and Land Use)
CDI Council for Data Integration
CEN Climate Effects Network
CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
CEAP Conservation Effects Assessment Project
CEGIS Center of Excellence for Geographic Information Science
CEOS Committee on Earth Observation Satellites
CEQ/NSTC Council on Environmental Quality/National Science and Technology Council
CERC Columbia Environmental Research Center
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
CESU Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CIO Chief Information Officer
CISN California Integrated Seismic Network

U.S. Geological Survey
R-2 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

CITES Conventional on International Trade in Endangered Species
CLU Climate and Land Use Change
CMG Coastal and Marine Geology
CMGP Coastal and Marine Geology Program
CMSP Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
CNS Central portion of the North Slope
CO 2 Carbon Dioxide
COAST Chesapeake Online Adaptive Support Toolkit
CoML U.S. National Committee for the Census of Marine Life
CORE Committee on Resource Evaluation
CPIC Capital Planning and Investment Control
CR Central Region
CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
CRSSP Commercial Remote Sensing Space Policy
CRTF Coral Reef Task Force
CRU Cooperative Research Units
CRUISE Columbia River USGS Integrated Science Explorer
CRV Current Replacement Value
CRWA Charles River Watershed Association
CSC Climate Science Center
CSI Core Science Informatics
CSIP Cost Savings and Innovation Plan
CSIRC Computer Security Incident Response Capability
CSMP California Seafloor Mapping Program
CSRS Civil Service Retirement System
CSS Core Science Systems
CTBTO Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization
CUES Comprehensive Urban Ecosystems Studies
CUSEC Central United States Earthquake Consortium
CVJV Central Habitat Joint Venture
CVO Cascades Volcano Observatory
CWD Chronic Wasting Disease
CWP Cooperative Water Program
CWS Canadian Wildlife Service
DCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DEP [State] Department of Environmental Protection
DEQ [State] Department of Environmental Quality
DFRs Departmental Functional Reviews
DGH Indian Directorate General of Hydrocarbons
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DiGIR Distributed Generic Information Retrieval
DMC Data Management Center

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-3
Acronyms

DMC Disaster Monitoring Constellation
DMCI Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
DPAS Data Processing and Archiving
DRAGON Delta Research and Global Observation Network
DROT Drift River Oil Terminal
DRTO Dry Tortugas National Park
DWH Deepwater Horizon
DSS Decision Support System
EA Enterprise Architecture
EAD Enterprise Active Directory
EAL Energy Analytical Laboratory
ECMs Energy Conservation Measures
ECO Energy Conserving Opportunities
ECS [U.S.] Extended Continental Shelf
ECV Essential Climate Variable
EDCs Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
EDEN Everglades Depth Estimation Network
EDMAP Education Mapping Program (in National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program)
EDRR Early Detection, Rapid Assessment and Response
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EFT Electronic Funds Transfer
EGIM Enterprise Geographic Information Management
EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems
EHP Earthquake Hazards Program (Hazards Program)
EHP Enterprise Hosting Platform (AEI)
EI Enterprise Information
EIR Enterprise Information Resources
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EIS&T Enterprise Information Security and Technology
ELA Enterprise License Agreement
ELT Executive Leadership Team
EMS Environmental Management System
E.O. Executive Order
EOL Encyclopedia of Life
EOP Executive Office of the President
EOR Enhanced Oil/Gas Recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000
EPM Ecosystem Portfolio Model

U.S. Geological Survey
R-4 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

ER Eastern Region
ERA F-Risk Assessment
ERAS eRemote Access Services
EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
ERP Energy Resources Program
ESD Earth Surface Dynamics
ESI Environmental Sensitivity Index
ESN Enterprise Services Network
ESPC Energy Savings Performance Contract
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
ET Evapotranspiration
ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
EVMS Earned Value Management System
EWeb Enterprise Web
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAC Federal Advisory Committee
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAER Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources
FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
FBAT Facilities Budget Allocation Team
FBMS Financial Business Management System
FBWT Fund Balance with Treasury
FCI Facilities Condition Index
FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture
FECA Federal Employee Compensation Act
FEDMAP Federal Lands Mapping Program (in National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program)
FEGLI Federal Employees Group Life Insurance
FEHB Federal Employees Health Benefit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FERS Federal Employees Retirement System
FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996
FFS Fire and Fire Surrogate
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act
FICMNEW Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
FISC Florida Integrated Science Center
FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act
FMT Field Managers Team
FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982
FMMS Facilities Maintenance Management System
FOS Flight Operations Segment
FOT Flight Operations Team

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-5
Acronyms

FRAMES Fire Research and Management Exchange System
FRB Federal Reserve Board
FRPC Federal Real Property Council
FRPP Federal Real Property Profile
FSA Farm Service Agency
FSAM Federal Segment Architecture Methodology
FSP Fundamental Science Practice
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GAM Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program
GAP Gap Analysis Program
GAO Government Accountability Office
GBIP Great Basin Information Project
GBIS Global Biodiversity Information Facility
GCDAMP Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program
GC-IMS Global Change-Information Management System
GCP Global Change Program
GCMRC Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
GEO Group on Earth Observations
GEODE GEO-Data Explorer
GeoMAC Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination Group
GEOMAG Geomagnetism Program
GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems
GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
GFL Global Fiducials Library
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIRT Geospatial Information Response Team
GIS Geographic Information System
GLS Global Land Survey
GLSC Great Lakes Science Center
GNIS Geographic Names Information System
GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites
GOS Geospatial One-Stop
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
GRB Green River Basin
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPS Global Positioning System
GPSC Geospatial Products and Services Contract
GSA General Services Administration
GS-FLOW Groundwater and Surface-water flow model
GSN Global Seismographic Network
GWRP Ground-Water Resources Program

U.S. Geological Survey
R-6 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

HAZUS Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Earthquake Loss Estimation Program
HBN USGS Hydrologic Benchmark Network
HDOA Hawaii Department of Agriculture
HDR High-Data Rate Radio
HEDDS Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Early Detection Data System
HDDS Hazards Data Distribution System
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HIF Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility
HLI Healthy Lands Initiative
HNA Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program
HPO High Performing Organization
HPPG High Priority Performance Goal
HR Human Resources
HR&D Hydrologic Research and Development Program
HRS Helibourne electromagnetic Surveys
HSPD -12 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12
HUB Historically Underutilized Business
HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVO Hawaii Volcano Observatory
HWATT Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Action Team
I&M Inventory and Monitoring – NPS
IAGA International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
ICAO International Civil Authorization Organization
ICL International Consortium on Landslides
ICRP Internal Control Review Plan
ICWP Interstate Council on Water Policy
IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources
IEAM Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
IGPP Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics
IIE Integrated Information Environment
ILM Integrated Landscape Monitoring
IOOS Integrated Ocean and coastal Observing System
IP Investment Plan
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPDS Information Product Data System
IRB Investment Review Board
IRIS Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology
IRS Indian Remote Sensing Satellite
InSAR Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISSP Information Security Strategic Plan
IT Information Technology
ITAP Invasive Terrestrial Animals and Plants

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-7
Acronyms

ITILOB Information Technology Infrastructure Line of Business
ITIS Integrated Taxonomic Information System
ITSOT IT Security Operations Team
ITSSC IT Security Steering Committee
ITT Information Technology Transformation
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IUCN International Union of Conservation Nations
JFA Joint Funding Agreement
JV Joint Venture Partnerships
KSF Thousand Square Feet
LAS Local Action Strategy
LCAT Land Cover Analysis Tool
LCC Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
LCSP Land Change Science Program
LDCM Landsat Data Continuity Mission
LDGST Landsat Data GAP Study Team
LEAG Long-term Estuary Assessment Group
LHP Landslide Hazards Program
LiDAR Light Detecting and Ranging
LIFE NBII Library of Images from the Environment
LIMA Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica
LMV Lower Mississippi Valley
LMVJV Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office
LOA Level of Authentication
LRS Land Remote Sensing
LSC Leetown Science Center
LST Landsat Science Team
LTRMP Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program
LTWG Landsat Technical Working Group
LUPM Land Use Portfolio Model
MARCO Mid-Atlantic Research Consortium for Oceanography
MBTU Million British thermal units
MD Management Directive
MEO Most Effective Organization
METRIC Mapping EvapoTranspiration with high Resolution and Internalized Calibration
MHDP Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project
MMS Minerals Management Service
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOC Mission Operations Center
MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
MODFLOW Modular Ground-Water Flow Model
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRBI Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative

U.S. Geological Survey
R-8 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

MRDS Mineral Resources Data System
MRERP Mineral Resources External Research Program
MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
MRP Mineral Resources Program
MSCP Multi-Species Conservation Program
MSH Mount St. Helens
MSS Multi Spectral Scanner
MTBE Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether
MTBS Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity
MUSIC MIT-USGS Science Impact Collaborative
MW Megawatt
MWE Megawatt electric
NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative
NACO National Association of Counties
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAGT National Association of Geoscience Teachers
NANPCA Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NAS National Academy of Sciences (Core Science)
NAS USGS National Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Database (Ecosystems)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network
NatWeb National Web Server System
NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment
NBC Department of the Interior – National Business Center
NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure
NCA National Climate Assessment
NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research
NCAP National Civil Applications Program
NCCWSC National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem
NCEP/NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction
NCGMP National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
NCIA National Competitiveness Investment Act
NCPP USGS National Coastal Program Plan
NCRDS National Coal Resources Data System
NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center
NDOP National Digital Orthoimagery Program
NED National Elevation Dataset
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NEIC National Earthquake Information Center
NEON National Ecological Observatory Network
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-9
Acronyms

NEST National Environmental Status and Trends
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory
NFHAP National Fish Habitat Action Plan
NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NGAC National Geospatial Advisory Committee
NGGDPP National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program
NGIC National Geomagnetic Information Center
NGMA National Geologic Mapping Act
NGMDP National Geologic Map Database Project
NGO Nongovernmental organization
NGP National Geospatial Program
NGWMN National Ground Water Monitoring Network
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NHWC National Hydrologic Warning Council
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIFC National Interagency Fire Center
NIH National Institute of Health
NISC National Invasive Species Council
NIISS National Institute for Invasive Species Science
NISMP National Invasive Species Management Plan
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIWR National Institutes for Water Resources
NLC National League of Cities
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NLlC National Landslide Information Center
NLI National Land Imaging Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command
NORTHCOM U.S. Northern Command
NOSC National Operations and Security Center
NPN National Phenology Network
NPRA National Petroleum Reserve Alaska
NPS National Park Service
NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment
NRIS Natural Resource Information System
NRC National Research Council (United States National Academies)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission (United States NRC)
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRMP National Resource Monitoring Partnership
NROC Northeast Regional Ocean Council
NRP National Research Program (research organization in USGS Water Resources)
NRPP National Resource Preservation Program
NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure

U.S. Geological Survey
R-10 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

NSF National Science Foundation
NSGIC National States Geographic Information Council
NSIP National Streamflow Information Program
NSLRSDA National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive
NSMP National Strong Motion Program
NSPD National Space Policy
NSTC National Science and Technology Council
NSVRC Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission
NTN National Trends Network
NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard
NVEWS National Volcano Early Warning System
NWAVU National Water Availability and Use Assessment
NWHC National Wildlife Health Center
NWIS National Water Information System
NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory
NWQMN National Water Quality Monitoring Network
NWRC National Wetlands Research Center
NWS National Weather Service
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OAEI Office of Administration and Enterprise Information
OAFM USGS Office of Accounting and Financial Management
OAG USGS Office of Acquisition and Grants
OAP Ocean Action Plan
OBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information System
OBIS USGS Office of Business Information Systems, (AEI)
OCAP USGS Office of Communication and Publications
OED Office of Employee Development
OEPC Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
OES Office of Emergency Services
OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
OFEE Office of the Federal Environmental Executive
OFR Open-File Report
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
OHC USGS Office of Human Capital
OIA Office of Insular Affairs
OICR USGS Office of Internal Control and Reporting
OIG Office of the Inspector General
OGDB Organic Geochemistry Database
OLI Operational Land Imager
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OMS USGS Office of Management Services
OPA USGS Office of Policy and Analysis
OPM Office of Personnel Management

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-11
Acronyms

ORPP Ocean Research Priority Plan
ORPPIS Ocean Research and Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSM Office of Surface Mining
OSQI Office of Science Quality and Integrity
OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy
OWRS Office of Western Regional Services
PAGER Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response
PBO Plate Boundary Observatory
PBX Private Branch Exchange
PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction
PDA Personal Digital Assistant
PDF Portable Document Format
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PES Priority Ecosystem Science
PFM (Department) Office of Financial Management
PI Principal Investigator
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PIP Performance Improvement Plan
PIP Program Improvement Plan
PMO Project Management Office
PNAMP Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership
POA&M Plan of Action and Milestone
PP&E Property, Plant, and Equipment
PRB Powder River Basin
PSNER Puget Sound Near Shore Ecosystem Restoration
PSS Perimeter Security Standard
PTWC Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
PWRC Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
QOL Quality of Life
R&D Research and Development
RASA Regional Aquifer-System Analysis
RCM Regional Climate Models
RCOOS Regional Coastal Ocean Observing Systems
REE Rare Earth Elements
REMS River Ecosystem and Modeling Science
RFP Request for Proposal
RGIO Regional Geospatial Information Office®
RIF Reduction in Force
RIM River Input Monitoring Program
RISA Regional Integrated Science and Assessments – NOAA
RPM Real Property Management System
RSAC Remote Sensing Application Center

U.S. Geological Survey
R-12 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

RSSI Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
RTS Reports Tracking System (Water Resources)
R/V Research Vessel
RWRPC Regional Water Resources Policy Committee
S&T USGS Status and Trends Program
SAC Stakeholder advisory Committee (Climate and Land use)
SAC USGS Science Advisory Council
SAFOD San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth
SAFRR Science Application for Risk Reduction
SAIN Southern Appalachian Information Node
SAP Synthesis and Assessment Product
SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar
SAUS Storage Assessment Units
SBFD San Francisco Bay and freshwater delta
SBSP South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project
SCEC Southern California Earthquake Center
SCR System Concept Review
SDI Spatial Data Infrastructures
SDR Subcommittee for Disaster Reductions
SDRT Supervisory Development Review Team
SES Senior Executive Service
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SFBD San Francisco Bay Delta
SFMP Strategic Facilities Master Plan
SFWMD South Florida Water Management District
SHC Strategic Habitat Conservation
SLC Scan Line Corrector
SGL Standard General Ledger
SIR Surveys, Investigations, and Research
SOGW Subcommittee of Ground Water
SoIVES Social Values for Ecosystem Services
SOW Statement of Work
SPARROW Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes
SPN Scientific Publishing Network
SPOC Security Point of Contact
SPOT Satellite Pour L’Observation de la Terre
SPRESO South Pole Remote Earth Science Observatory
SRR Systems Requirement Review
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission
SSRIs Selective Seronin Reuptake Inhibitors
STATEMAP State Mapping Program (in Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program)
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
STIG Security Technical Implementation Guides

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-13
Acronyms

SWPC Space Weather Prediction Center
TAA Technical Assistance Agreements
TANC Transport of Anthropogenic and Natural Contaminants
TCOM Tahoe Constrained Optimization Model
TDWG Biodiversity Information Standards
TIC Trusted Internet Connection
TIRS Thermal Infrared Sensor
TM Thematic Mapper
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads (Clean Water Act requirement)
TRIGRS Transient Rainfall Infiltration and Grid-Based Regional Slope-Stability Analysis
TRIP The Road Indicator Project
TROR Treasury Report on Receivables
TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TSP Thrift Savings Plan
UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems
UHM University of Hawaii-Manoa
UIC Underground Injection Control
URISA Urban and Regional Information System Association
U.S. United States
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S.C. United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOE U.S. Department of Energy
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program
USGEO U.S. Group on Earth Observations
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UMESC Upper Midwest Environmental Services Center
USNG United States Nation Grid
VANS Volcano Activity Notices
VBNS Very Broadband Network Services
VCP Vegetation Characterization Program
VDAP Volcano Disaster Assistance Program
Veg Vegetation Characterization
VegDRI Vegetation Drought Response Index
VHP Volcano Hazards Program
VHSV Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus
VOIP Voice over IP Systems
VONA Volcano Observatory Notifications for Aviation
VSIP/VERA Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment/Voluntary Early Retirement Authority
VTC Video Teleconferencing
WAN Wide Area Network

U.S. Geological Survey
R-14 2018 Budget Justification
Acronyms

WCCI Wyoming Cooperative Conservation Initiative
WCF Working Capital Fund
WCMC UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center
WERC Western Ecological Research Center
WFRC Western Fisheries Research Center
WLAN Wide Local Area Network
WLCI Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative
WNS White-Nose Syndrome
WNV West Nile Virus
WPA World Petroleum Assessment 2000
WR Western Region
WRD Water Resources discipline (formerly Water Resources Division)
WRIR Water Resources Investigation Report
WRRA Water Resources Research Act
WRRIs [State] Water Resources Research Institutes
WSC [USGS State] Water Science Center
WSWC Western States Water Council
WTER Wildlife: Terrestrial and Endangered Resources
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
YMP Yucca Mountain Program
YVO Yellowstone Volcano Observatory

U.S. Geological Survey
2018 Budget Justification R-15
Acronyms

This page intentionally left blank.

U.S. Geological Survey
R-16 2018 Budget Justification